Taking Root in Foreign Soil: Adaptation Processes of Imported

By Terrence F. Graham

B.A. in International Studies and English, December 1992, of Dayton M.A.in Slavic , , and , August 1996, The Ohio State University

A Dissertation submitted to

The Faculty of the Graduate School of and Human Development of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education

August 31, 2016

Dissertation directed by

Roger Whitaker Professor of and of

The Graduate School of Education and Human Development of The George Washington

University certifies that Terrence F. Graham has passed the Final Examination for the degree of Doctor of Education as of June 10, 2016. This is the final and approved form of the dissertation.

Taking Root in Foreign Soil: Adaptation Processes of Imported Universities

Terrence F. Graham

Dissertation Research Committee:

Roger Whitaker, Professor of Higher Education and of Sociology, Dissertation Director

Mikyong Minsun Kim, Associate Professor of Higher Education, Committee Member

Laura C. Engel, Assistant Professor of International Education and International Affairs, Committee Member

ii

© Copyright 2016 by Terrence F. Graham All rights reserved

iii Dedication

To Yulia

iv Acknowledgements

Many friends and colleagues lent their support and guidance along my journey. My adviser, Roger Whitaker, struck the right balance of patience and persistent pressure to keep me on task. My colleagues at American Councils, in particular David Patton and

Dan Davidson, provided mentorship and allowed me the flexibility I needed to complete my data collection. At California State University, Long Beach, Jeet Joshee provided encouragement and support. I am especially grateful to the many colleagues at the

American University in , the American University of Central Asia, and South

East European University who shared with me their viewpoints and many cups of strong coffee. I want to express special thanks to Luan Estrefi in Tetovo for welcoming me with warm hospitality and showing me the village his family had lived in for generations;

Sven Stafford in Bishkek, who connected me with international education development colleagues and showed me a new perspective on the game of golf; and American

Councils colleagues who shared their in-country knowledge with me and made introductions: Lydia Dachkova in , Cale Wagner and Rebecca Gordon in Bishkek,

Velikova Angelkova in Skopje and her husband Dane.

v Abstract of Dissertation

Taking Root in Foreign Soil: Adaptation Processes of Imported Universities

The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 ushered in a period of change in higher-education systems across the former Eastern bloc. Reform-minded leaders in the region sought to introduce western models and policies promoted by foreign development aid agendas.

Private higher-education institutions emerged. This qualitative multiple case study examines three universities based on the western, private, nonprofit model that were established during the post-Cold War transition period: the American University of

Central Asia (Kyrgyz Republic), South East European University (Macedonia), and the

American University in Bulgaria. These institutions, founded through a process of negotiation involving the national government, U.S. and European governments, and nongovernmental organizations, offered an alternative to state universities. This negotiation continued as these institutions adapted to their changing sociopolitical contexts. The study explores the interplay of global, national, and local influences at the level of these institutions. The research presented is based on data collected on field visits through interviews with faculty and administrators and focus groups with students, as well as document analysis. Findings from the study shed light on how new institutions strive to establish legitimacy. The financial support for these institutions evolved from an initial heavy dependence on support from foreign aid agencies to greater reliance on tuition and responsiveness to the higher education market. The ability to adapt to shifting circumstances while maintaining a consistent sense of identity, despite turnover of faculty and administrators, proved vital. These universities, to varying degrees, were able to strike a balance between the global and local that allowed them to establish themselves as

vi highly regarded institutions in their respective countries. As interest in transnational education grows, this study offers insights into finding a balance between global and local that results in a sustainable higher education endeavor.

vii Table of Contents

Dedication ...... iv

Acknowledgements ...... v

Abstract of Dissertation ...... vi

List of Figures ...... ix

List of Tables ...... x

Chapter I: The Problem and Its Setting ………...... …..………...... ……….....1

Chapter II: Review of the ………………………………………….……..…..21

Chapter III: Methods ……………………………………………………………...……..53

Chapter IV: Results …………………...…………………………………………...….....79

Chapter V: Discussion, Conclusions, Recommendations ………………………...…....207

Appendix A: Project Overview for Participants ...... 255

Appendix B: Informed Consent Form ...... 256

Appendix C: Faculty Interview Protocol ...... 262

Appendix D: Focus Group Interview Protocol ...... 265

Appendix E: Stakeholder Interview Protocol ...... 267

Appendix F: Sample Permission Request Sent to University President/Rector ...... 269

Appendix G: Sample Emails Requests for Interviews/Focus Groups ...... 270

References ...... 273

viii List of Figures

Figure 2.1...... 40

Figure 2.2...... 46

ix List of Tables

Table 2.1 ...... 49

Table 3.1 ...... 60

Table 3.2 ...... 65

Table 3.3 ...... 72

Table 4.1 ...... 85

Table 4.2 ...... 122

Table 4.3 ...... 144

Table 5.1 ...... 228

x Chapter I: The Problem and Its Setting

In his influential chronicle on globalization, The World is Flat, journalist Thomas

Friedman argued that two dates have powerfully shaped the world in the past quarter century: 11/9 and 9/11. The latter date refers to the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001. The former refers to the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989.

Friedman sees these dates as signals of countervailing impulses—one associated with destruction, violence, and pessimism; the other with creativity, the opening up of new possibilities, and optimism. The dismantling of the Berlin Wall was an action that was undertaken by individuals “who dared to imagine a different, more open world,” one in which people would be free to realize their full potential (Friedman, 2005, p. 441). The impulse for change across the countries east of the Berlin Wall sparked a reimagining of higher education. Many higher-education systems looked to the west for fresh ideas and models for higher education better suited to the demands of a globalized, market-based world economy. This research seeks a better understanding of this process of reimagining higher education.

National systems of education, as well as individual institutions, responded to these changes in different ways. Demand for higher education was growing (Altbach,

Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2009), leading to the proliferation of different institutional models.

Privatization of higher education, often driven by neoliberal economic policies, became common. Branch campuses, institutional partnerships leading to dual degrees, distance- education degrees—all are examples of experimentation in global higher education

(Altbach, 2004; Wildavsky, 2010). Some of these experiments proved unsustainable, such as Michigan State University’s branch campus in the United Arab Emirates

1 (Abramson, 2010). Others resulted in a proliferation of low quality degrees and diploma mills (Altbach, 2010). This expansion of higher education globally is expected to continue as demand for access grows and global competition within the knowledge-based economy heightens.

The transfer of university models is a growing phenomenon, although not a new one (Altbach, 2004). The past twenty-five years of post-socialist change in Central and

Eastern Europe and the former have witnessed numerous experiments with establishing western models of higher education. The foreign-supported universities that were established in this region arguably continued a tradition that traces back to colonialism and now is accompanied by a Cold-War triumphalism. Yet these new institutions are more than mere vestiges of a colonial past. Indeed, they encompass many central issues in global higher-education development today. These institutions, established largely through the support of foreign governments, are embedded with strong global influences. They were formed through a process of negotiation between their national governments and the global actors involved in the building of these schools.

This process of negotiation has continued as these institutions have adapted to their new contexts and to the rapidly changing global higher education landscape. They have also undergone significant changes internally, at the institutional level, with changes in leadership, turnover in faculty, structural shifts, and new technologies. Despite these global, national, and local factors – or perhaps thanks to them – these institutions have survived. How have they managed to adapt to their new environments? The answer to this question holds many lessons for global higher education practices.

Research Purpose

2 The purpose of this study is to explore how a foreign model of higher education— the western, private, nonprofit institutional model—has been adapted to different contexts in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The study examines three institutions that emerged during the same time period, were conceived with similar purposes, yet have had to adapt to different sociopolitical environments: the American University of

Central Asia (AUCA) in Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic; South East European University

(SEEU) in Tetovo, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; and the American

University in Bulgaria (AUBG) in Blagoevgrad.

The American University of Central Asia (AUCA) holds a place of prestige among institutions in the Kyrgyz Republic. In his survey of student in the

Kyrgyz Republic, DeYoung (2011) found that AUCA is perceived by students to be one of the top two institutions in the country, along with the Kyrgyz Russian Slavonic

University, for academic quality. AUCA first emerged in 1993 under the guidance of

Camilla Sharshekeeva as a unit within Kyrgyz State National University and was called the Kyrgyz-American School. It was later established as an independent university, the

American University of Kyrgyzstan, in 1997. The university received official support in

1998 through an agreement by the government of Kyrgyzstan, the United States

Department of State, and OSI, and in 2002 it changed its name to the American

University of Central Asia to reflect a broader regional scope for the institution. USAID and OSI remain major funders of the institution. AUCA describes itself as a “community in the American liberal tradition” (American University of Central Asia, 2012). It offers undergraduate degrees in the social sciences and humanities, software engineering, business and , , journalism, and area studies. AUCA also offers graduate

3 degrees, an academic preparation program, and for professionals.

Instruction is primarily in English. AUCA is accredited in the Kyrgyz Republic. Through a partnership with Bard College, since 2011 the university has granted U.S.–accredited diplomas for most undergraduate fields of study. In the 2011-12 academic year, 1,181 students were enrolled at AUCA, and there were 124 faculty members (AUCA, 2012).

South East European University (SEEU) was founded in 2001 in Tetovo as the first public-private, non-profit university in the Republic of Macedonia. It was established through cooperation between the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), USAID, the European Commission, and the Government of

Macedonia (Farrington & Abazi, 2009). One of the main reasons for establishing SEEU was to provide opportunities for “interethnic and multilingual ” following the repression of Albanian- higher education under the Milosevic regime

(Farrington & Abazi, 2009, p. 11). Initial funding for the university came from various sources, and 50% was provided by USAID. SEEU offers undergraduate and graduate study in the social sciences; business and economics; public administration and political science; law; science and technology; and languages, , and communication.

Instruction is in Macedonian, English, and Albanian. The university is accredited by the

Accreditation and Evaluation Board of the Republic of Macedonia and also holds accreditation from the Turkish Ministry of Education (SEEU, 2012). For the 2010-11 academic year was 1,595 students were enrolled and there were 261 faculty members at

261. SEEU has a branch campus in Skopje.

AUBG was founded in 1991 through a partnership of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Open Society Institute (OSI), the University

4 of Maine, and the City of Blagoevgrad (AUBG, 2006). The initial aim of AUBG was to give “young people in the region a distinct alternative to state-run education” (AUBG,

2006, p. 1). The university drew upon American liberal-arts and land-grant models for its curriculum and structure. Since its inception, AUBG has sought to be a model institution of higher education in the region with an emphasis on American-style liberal arts curriculum (AUBG, 2006; AUBG, 2011). AUBG offers undergraduate programs in business and economics, , , , information systems, journalism and mass communication, mathematics, and political science.

Instruction is primarily in English. Although the institution has encountered many challenges, it is now considered among the top in the country. A fall 2010 ranking commissioned by the Bulgarian Ministry of Education ranked AUBG first in student outcomes, and all of its academic programs were ranked the best in the country or were tied with the flagship public institution, (AUBG, 2011). AUBG holds both U.S. and Bulgarian accreditation. Approximately 70% of its 80 faculty members are full-time. Student enrollment in 2010–11 was over 1,400 (AUBG, 2011).

These three institutions, today of similar size, scope, and purpose, were formed in the period of post-socialist transformation through the joint efforts of global actors like

USAID and OSI together with local and national governments. AUBG and SEEU were created as new institutions, whereas AUCA was based on an existing project and then spun off as an independent institution. All three continue to adapt to their different environments. The presence of global actors remains an influence to varying degrees, yet the institutions have their own cultures now, a locality that wields influence on their adaptation processes. Within the institutions, which were arguably created to model

5 specific higher-education practices and values, can be found a complex interplay of global, national, and local influences. How these factors influence their adaptation processes is the central focus of this study.

Why This Region Is Important

The region of Central and Eastern Europe and the independent states of the former Soviet Union provides a unique context for studying the global, national, and local dynamics within higher education. The region shares a legacy of public higher education. In the past two and a half decades of post-socialist transformation, however, this region has been a laboratory for educational experimentation and reform, often driven by external influences. These external influences include organizations, such as aid agencies, foreign governments, and international NGOs, as well as ideologies and reform agendas, such as neoliberalism or the Bologna principles. This multiplicity of actors in this region during this period reflects the “flow of ideas” about the “future world order” (Silova, 2011, p. 14). As Silova (2011) argues, referring specifically to Central

Asia, but equally applicable to Central and Eastern Europe, “[I]f we understand how the controversies and contradictions embedded in global imaginaries are being played out on the world’s geopolitical margins, we should be able to learn more about the global norms as such and not just about their Central Asian versions” (Silova, 2011, p. 6). Thus, the understanding of the adaptation of foreign models that this study contributes has implications far beyond the confines of the former Eastern bloc. The regional context provides boundaries for this multiple case study that limit the number of socio-cultural variables that might explain cross-case differentiations, so that the most relevant differences rise to the top. These differences and commonalities shed light on worldwide

6 dynamics of global, national, and local influences on higher-education institutions.

Problem of Practice

Leaders of global models of higher education face many challenges in adapting their institutions to new contexts. Branch campuses may be a short-term solution, but, argues Altbach (2010), they may result in “damage to academic reputations, financial losses, and . . . poor service to students . . .” (p. 3). An alternative to branch campuses is creating institutions from scratch in new environments. New York University is testing this model with its global network university. Each institution in the network is a blank- slate institution, created from scratch rather than established as a branch of the main campus in New York (Mills, 2010). The NYU approach with distinct institutions avoids a frequent criticism of branch campuses—namely, that they do not live up to the quality of the flagship institution. University leaders and policymakers have many choices before them for meeting increased demand and preparing their country’s students for the globalized economy. The choice they make might be informed by a better understanding of how foreign university models are adapted to a socioculturally different contexts. By facilitating their establishment, national governments can benefit from the presence of a reputable foreign universities that are primarily educating the host country’s students.

Importantly, these universities may also serve as bridges connecting the national higher- education system with western academic and professional networks (Bertelsen, 2009b).

This link for local academics and students to these international academic networks influences not only their institutions, but also other institutions in their country and ultimately has an impact on the national system of higher education. The original intention of the American University in Bulgaria, for example, was to “serve as an

7 exemplar and demonstrate a totally different way of providing higher education” from the public universities in Bulgaria (AUBG, 2006). The mobility of faculty, staff, students, and administrators from AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG circulates ideas and practices through their respective countries’ higher-education systems that inevitably leave an indelible imprint. Thus these universities have the potential not only to be successful as individual institutions, but also to play a transformative role in the higher-education system of a country or region.

The choices that university administrators, faculty, and board members make may be informed by a better understanding of these institutions’ adaptive strategies. As increasing numbers of institutions seek to incorporate international dimensions into their curricula, whether through establishing an overseas program or campus or a dual-degree arrangement or other partnership, campus leaders can learn from this study what forms of global/national/local interactions are sustainable and beneficial.

This study has significance for research in the field of comparative and international education. A goal of the study is to generate theory regarding adaptation processes of institutions. This theory complements existing literature on policy borrowing and provides insights into the dynamic of global, national, and local influences at the institutional level.

Problem of Research

The spread of western-style universities has been studied from different perspectives. Prince (2008) studied the liberal-arts tradition in different contexts in his work on the power of education to promote societal change. Among the institutions he studied was the American University in Bulgaria. Cichocki (2005) examined the

8 relevance of world-systems theory in her comparative case study on three different types of U.S. institutions in the Middle East, including the American University of Sharjah.

Sahadeo (2011) discusses the Aga Khan development network and its preparations to open a western-oriented university network in the Central Asia region, the University of

Central Asia, with campuses in Naryn, Kyrgyz Republic; Khorog, Tajikistan; and Tekeli,

Kazakhstan. Yet much of the research has focused on single-country studies (DeYoung,

2011; Sahadeo, 2011; Spreen, 2006; Steiner-Khamsi & Stolpe, 2006; Vavrus, 2006).

Steiner-Khamsi laments the lack of cross-national studies, claiming that within comparative and international education scholarship in the U.S., single-country studies have been “the main method of inquiry dominating comparative education since its inception as an academic field” (Steiner-Khamsi, 2006, p. 31). The inclusion of institutions from three countries seeks to address this gap in the literature by juxtaposing national contexts and exploring their differing higher-educion landscapes. In the final cross-case analysis of my study, I examine patterns of adaptation processes that might be shared across different contexts.

Numerous studies focus on reforms and development in the former Eastern bloc following 1989 (Amthor & Metzger, 2011; Bacevic, 2014; Dzhaparova, 2005;

Heyneman, 2004; Heyneman & Anderson, 2008; Koktsidis, 2012; Levy, 2007; Scott,

2007; Silova & Steiner-Khamsi, 2008; Steiner-Khamsi, Silova & Johnson, 2006). The neoliberal agenda that has driven the rise of private higher education in this region is a central current that runs though many of these studies. Studies on national systems of higher education, policy borrowing across countries, and dynamics between state governments and international donors are numerous (Dzhaparova, 2005; McGowan,

9 2004; Steiner-Khamsi, Silova, & Johnson, 2008; Teixera, 2001; World Bank, 2002).

Many policy-analysis studies in the literature have focused considerably on comparisons of national systems and policies (McGowan, 2004; Murakami & Blom, 2008; Shavit,

Arum, & Gamoran, 2007). This study is situated in the culturalist perspective within comparative education research and draws upon much of the research that has been done on policy borrowing and lending. The present study does not focus on policy and reform at the national level, but instead seeks to understand processes and influences at the institutional level.

Conceptual Framework

The present study is situated in the culturalist perspective within comparative education research. As Spring (2008) points out, the culturalist agenda recognizes

“multiple knowledges, alternative cultural frameworks for schooling, and the importance of studying the interaction between the local and the global (p. 337, italics mine). The conceptual framework for this study has been influenced by research on globalization from the disciplines of and sociology. These disciplines recognize the complex processes of globalization and the complicated negotiation between the global, national, and local that is implied by globalization.

Marginson and Rhoades (2002) call for a more nuanced approach to the study of globalization and higher education that recognizes the global, national, and local dimensions of universities. They developed a framework they called the “glonacal agency heuristic.” This model will provide the overall analytical framework for approaching the case studies included in this work.

10 Global influences are particularly significant for the institutions in this study, which were embedded at their inception with a global dimension through significant support from the U.S. government and other global actors, such as OSI. Other global influences on these institutions reflect worldwide trends in higher education and the prominence of a neoliberal agenda that entails privatization of the education sector, the adoption of western models of higher education, and new managerialism in university administrative practice (King, 2010).

Several aspects of the national system of higher education influence how institutions adapt to different challenges. Historically embedded attitudes toward higher education, legislation, and changing student demographics are examples of national influences on institutional adaptation. In each of the three countries included in this study, a central ministry of education wields considerable influence on universities through licensing, oversight, and higher formation. The national influences relate closely to regional influences. National policies were shaped by the efforts of the respective governments to position themselves within their immediate regions. For Bulgaria and Macedonia, the regional influences included the inter-ethnic strife across the throughout the 1990s, as well as the emergence of the EU and aspirations for membership. In Kyrgyzstan, national policies were shaped largely by relationships with neighbors, in particular, the Russian Federation, as well as resource- rich Kazakhstan and China.

At the local level, this study explores elements within the institution itself that have influenced its adaptation to its environment. My exploration of the local influences

11 on these institutions draws from Barbara Sporn’s (1999) theory of adaptation in higher education, which contains elements of organizational theory and theories of leadership.

Research Questions

The overarching research question that this study addresses is: How is a foreign model of higher education adapted within different national contexts? Specific sub- questions explored in this study include:

• To what extent is the development of these institutions affected by global, national, and local influences?

• To what extent do the mission and values of these institutions influence the institutional environment?

• How do institutions’ adaptation strategies evolve in response to various external and internal challenges?

Country Contexts

Bulgaria

A snapshot of the higher education structure in Bulgaria shows that it is indeed moving formally toward the EU and the principles established in the Bologna agreement, though it retains some elements of its previous system. Bulgaria was one of the original signatories to the Bologna Process in 1999. In 2016, the country had 51 higher-education institutions —that is, universities or the equivalent, plus independent colleges (Republic of Bulgaria Ministry of Education and Science, 2016). Of these 51 institutions, 14 were private. The higher-education system serves a population of more than 7 million citizens.

The higher education sector consists of universities or equivalent institutions and colleges. Colleges, International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) level 5B,

12 offer a three-year “specialist” degree for training in specific professions that requires the completion of 180 European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) units. Graduates of colleges may continue on to bachelor’s degrees or enter the workforce. Many colleges are housed within universities, thereby facilitating the matriculation of students into the university after completion of two years of general education coursework, much like students who complete an associate’s degree in the United States with the purpose of transferring into a four-year university. Bulgarian universities offer bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees in a wide range of disciplines in the humanities and in the natural, social, and technical sciences. The bachelor’s degree, ISCED level 5A, requires a duration of four years minimum study, or 240 ECTS, as well as the successful passage of a state exam or diploma thesis defense.

At the master’s level (ISCED level 5A), students who complete the professional bachelor’s have the option of pursuing a two-year minimum master’s degree (120 ECTS).

Alternatively, the one-year minimum master’s degree, 60 ECTS minimum, can be obtained following completion of the bachelor’s degree. A five-year master’s, 300 ECTS, is offered in specific disciplines such as medicine, dentistry, law, and when these disciplines are not available through a bachelor/master’s sequence. Following completion of a master’s degree, students may pursue a . Doctoral study requires an additional three years of full-time or four years of part-time study beyond a master’s degree.

Higher-education institutions in Bulgaria have a relatively high degree of autonomy. Institutions establish their own admissions criteria based on examinations and a secondary-school diploma. Autonomy has allowed Bulgarian institutions to respond to

13 changes in the higher-education market. For example, admission has been simplified in recent years to facilitate larger enrollments as demand for higher education has grown.

Tuition fees are typically based on a two-tiered system, with one rate for Bulgarian and

EU citizens and a higher rate—roughly double—for non–EU citizens. Higher-education institutions provide “facilitated admission conditions” for disadvantaged populations

(Eurydice, 2010). This flexibility in establishing their own admissions practices allows institutions to adapt to a rapidly changing market. The mixed system of public and private institutions provides wider choices to students, although the quality of those choices varies considerably. Private universities in Bulgaria have pioneered change in higher education (Slantcheva, 2002; Ivanova, 2010). For reformers, the universities offered a way to “optimize the provision of higher education” (Slantcheva-Durst, 2010, p.

13). As elsewhere in the Balkans, many of the reform efforts in Bulgaria have entailed harmonization with the Bologna Process and EU norms. Often it was private institutions like the New Bulgarian University that adopted new standards first. Bulgaria joined the

European Union in 2007.

Kyrgyz Republic

The Kyrgyz higher-education system consists of 54 institutions, including 33 public and 21 private institutions (Asian Development Bank, 2015 p. 5). This number reflects a fourfold increase since the country’s independence in 1991 (DeYoung, 2011).

Approximately 12.5% of students attend private institutions (Asian Development Bank,

2015). Sahadeo (2011) calls the higher education market “undeniably vibrant,” with a diverse mix of state and private institutions serving a population of slightly more than five million (p. 102). Although private universities, like their state counterparts, vary

14 considerably in quality, many of the most prestigious institutions in the region, namely

AUCA, the Russian-Slavonic University, and the Turkish Manas University, are “at once private and affiliated with foreign institutes of higher learning” (Sahadeo, 2011, p. 102).

With only a few exceptions, including AUCA, private institutions are proprietary institutions—that is, they are “family owned and operated for profit” (Heyneman, 2011, p. 32). The Law on Education from April 30, 2003, governs the operations of all higher- education institutions (Tempus, 2010).

The Kyrgyz system of higher education retains many features of the Soviet system (DeYoung, 2011). Since independence, however, the country has experimented with measures to move toward a system “based on democratic principles and on pluralism of values” (Tempus, 2010, p. 1). In 2009, the ministry of education made formal its goal of working toward Bologna objectives; however, this declaration has thus far had little practical effect on higher education (DeYoung, 2011). One major reform effort, spearheaded by USAID, was the introduction of a nationwide university admissions test, the National Scholarship Test (NST) (DeYoung, 2011). Indeed, the creation of this test provides an apt illustration of the dynamic between global, local, and national influences in the Kyrgyz Republic. The founder of the Kyrgyz-American School,

Camilla Sharshekeeva, was appointed minister of education in 2000. As minister, she initiated reforms to the university entrance process, which was notorious for corruption and inequity. Through her experience at AUCA, she had witnessed the American model of university admissions in practice and she based the development of the NST on this model. She believed that the use of an exam system run externally to the university would

“break the national stranglehold on scholarships under control of university rectors”

15 (DeYoung, 2011, p. 151). She was able to secure support from both the Kyrgyz government and USAID to establish the exam system, which remains in place to this day.

Republic of Macedonia

The Republic of Macedonia’s higher-education system comprises five accredited state institutions and 18 private institutions (Republic of Macedonia Ministry of

Education, 2016). These 23 institutions serve a multiethnic population of slightly more than two million. The flagship state university is the University of Cyril and Methodius in

Skopje, which offers a comprehensive range of disciplines. The state institution in Bitola,

St. Clement of Ohrid, is similarly comprehensive, whereas Goce Delcev University of

Stip and the State University of Tetovo have a narrower range of disciplines. Many of the private institutions specialize in a small number of fields, such as , , IT, business, and the social sciences (Republic of Macedonia Ministry of Education, 2016).

South East European University, because of its nonprofit status, is considered a “private- public” university, eligible to receive some state funding but obligated to invest all revenues in the further development of the institution, much like the nonprofit university model in the United States.

Macedonia became a signatory to the Bologna Declaration in 2003 and thus the

Bologna Process has had significant influence on education reform processes in the country (Stojanov & Angeloska-Galevska, 2006). In fact, throughout the Balkans, as countries reformed their higher education legislation since 1999, the Bologna Declaration has been a “guiding principle” for change (Stojanov & Angeloska-Galevska, 2006, p. 51).

For example, the Higher Education Law of July 2003 mandated the use of a credit system for undergraduate and graduate education. The credit system was harmonized with the

16 European Credit Transfer System, which was first adopted by the University of St. Cyril and Methodius in Skopje and the University of St. Clement of Ohrid in Bitola, as well as

South East European University (Stojanov & Angeloska-Galevska, 2006). Macedonia was as of 2016 a candidate for EU membership.

A significant challenge to higher education development reform in Macedonia was overcoming the legacy of ethnic divisions in the country. Macedonia is a multiethnic country with a large ethnic-Albanian minority of approximately 25% of the population.

Ethnic Albanians had been denied access to higher education in their native language by

Macedonian law (Czaplinski, 2008). One of the main objectives in establishing SEEU was to provide an opportunity for ethnic Albanians to study in their native tongue

(Farrington & Abazi, 2009).

Methodology

The focus of this study is the complex process of adaptation at the institutional level; therefore, I chose a qualitative case study method. A multi-case study approach was employed to examine each institution individually through within-case analysis, followed by cross-case analysis. According to George and Bennett (2005), “[T]he strongest means of drawing inferences from case studies is the use of a combination of within-case analysis and cross-case comparisons within a single study” (p. 18). Three institutions from different former Eastern bloc countries are the subjects of this study.

Data Collection and Analysis

I collected data for this study from document analysis, focused interviews with faculty members, focus groups with students, interviews with stakeholders, and nonparticipant observation during site visits. The perspectives of stakeholders provided a

17 broad view on the universities’ adaptation, depending on their historical knowledge of the institution. The stakeholders, who included education-development professionals and former university administrators, also offered insights into linkages between global, national, and local actors. The faculty perspective is crucial to understanding how pedagogical practices, classroom , research, and linkages with national and global professional associations influence the institutions’ development. Lastly, the student perspective provided a snapshot of how the institutions are perceived within society by their primary constituents.

An analysis of documents from each institution provided valuable contextual information for the data collected through interviews. Documents lending insights into internal processes at the institution, organizational culture, and how the university portrays itself to different audiences were of particular interest for the study. These documents included accreditation self-study reports; strategic-planning documents; university mission statements; values statements; course catalogs; websites; faculty and student handbooks; university, student and alumni publications; university-sanctioned social networking materials (YouTube videos, Facebook pages); and data from the institutional research office.

A second form of data collection for this study was through focused interviews with purposefully selected faculty members. The interview protocol used was consistent across all three institutions, thus allowing for some cross-case comparisons to be drawn in the final phase the study. As English is the official language of these institutions, I conducted the interviews in English.

A third form of data collection was focus groups with students attending the

18 universities in this study. The focus groups explored the same themes as the faculty interviews from the student perspective. I conducted two focus groups at each institution.

A fourth form of data collection in this study was achieved through focused interviews with stakeholders. Stakeholders included past and current university leaders, members or former members of the universities’ governing boards, USAID staff and other officials. Administrators were purposefully selected to include those in positions that influence the overall operations of the institution and their curriculum, strategic- planning and organizational matters.

During the data collection phase, I conducted site visits to each of the institutions under study for approximately two weeks. These site visits enabled me to observe the environments of students, faculty, and staff at these institutions. Observations included looking at the architectural layout of each institution and how students and faculty use public spaces; signs or banners that reflect a university ; interaction among students and between students and faculty; and special events or ceremonies at the institution. I documented my observations with descriptive and reflective memos

(Creswell, 2007).

Origin of Interest

My interest in this research topic is closely linked to my work as an administrator of international education programs linking the United States and Eastern Europe, Russia, and Central Asia. Most relevant was my oversight of grants in support of the European

Humanities University (EHU), an institution that shares many characteristics of the institutions included in my study. From 2007 to 2013, I interacted with EHU faculty and administrators and attended annual meetings of its governing board, which was grappling

19 with the strategic direction of the institution. The complexities of an institution such as

EHU—which receives strong financial support from the European Union, the U.S. government, and private foundations—and its struggle to adapt to new realities fascinated me and sparked my interest in this research topic. In addition, during the same time period, I oversaw a scholarship program for students attending either KIMEP University in Almaty, Kazakhstan or the American University of Central Asia, both western-style institutions in the former Soviet Union. The scholarships were funded by the U.S.-Central

Asia Education Foundation, which was created with U.S. government funds. This work allowed me to interact with students from Central Asia and faculty and staff at these institutions and further piqued my interest in the functioning of these university models.

Summary

In this initial chapter, I presented my research topic and the problems it seeks to address. I introduced the three institutions selected as case studies. All three case studies are located in the former Eastern bloc, narrowing the focus of my study to this region. I provided brief descriptions of the higher-education systems in Bulgaria, Macedonia, and the Kyrgyz Republic as context for the cases. I explore the contexts in greater depth in

Chapters IV and V of this study. Lastly I touched upon the methodology used in this study, a topic I develop further in Chapter III.

20 Chapter II: Review of the Literature

The purpose of this study is to explore how an imported model of higher education, the private American nonprofit, liberal arts institutional model, is adapted in different contexts. The study examines three institutions that emerged in the same geographic region during the same time period, were conceived with similar purposes, yet have had to adapt to different sociopolitical environments. How global, national, and local factors have influenced their adaptation is the central focus of this study.

In this chapter, I review the research literature that provided a framework for this study. I discuss the context of globalization and how this phenomenon is addressed in comparative education research. I address discourses of neoliberalism, focusing in particular on the trend toward privatization of education. Related to privatization, I discuss legitimacy-seeking by private universities. I raise the concept of soft power, particularly as it relates to universities is raised. I then examine research on policy borrowing, linking this literature to the imported models that are the focus of my study. I explore the process of policy borrowing as a negotiation between the local, national, and global and describe specific models for understanding this process. I conclude by focusing on the process of institutional adaptation to a new environment.

Globalization of Higher Education

The term globalization is widely used and widely debated. Globalization is a complex set of processes (Giddens, 2003) that affect contemporary life on multiple levels. The most common understanding of globalization places emphasis on its economic aspects: the liberalization of international trade, privatization, export-led economic growth, and global financial markets (Stiglitz, 2003; Stromquist & Monkman,

21 2000). These economic aspects of globalization, often closely linked to neoliberalism, are relevant to this study, as the universities included are representative of a rise in private education where previously only public universities had been in operation. Political aspects of globalization reflect the dynamics between the developed and developing world. To some on the periphery, globalization may seem suspiciously like

Westernization or even Americanization (Giddens, 2003). At the level of national politics, globalization is often associated with the shifting position of state power (Sassen,

2007; Stromquist & Monkman, 2000). At the same time, globalization can be seen to be disseminating democratic pluralism and in some ways facilitating a resurgence of local culture (Giddens, 2000). In short, globalization is a complex and often contradictory process that is redefining relationships at global, national, and local levels.

How has globalization affected higher education? Globalization is not new to the domain of higher education. From their beginnings, universities have “incorporated tensions between national realities and international trends” (Altbach, 2004, p. 2).

Globalization’s intensification of financial and economic exchange is paralleled by a boom in academic mobility in higher education. Although students have actively moved from institution to institution since the emergence of the first universities in Bologna,

Paris, and Oxford centuries ago, the scale with which this is occurring today is unprecedented (Wildavsky, 2010). Indeed, globalization is “truly worldwide in reach,” and technology contributes to the ever more rapid spread of innovations and practices

(Altbach, 2004, p. 2). Similar trends have occurred historically. Yet the speed and scope of financial transactions, capital flows, technological change, and communication distinguish the current world economy from similar liberalization trends that have

22 occurred throughout history, making the present phenomenon “revolutionary” (Giddens,

2003, p. 10). The affects of globalization on education have received considerable attention in the discipline of comparative education in the past decade, but further study of this complex subject is needed.

Comparative Education Research on Globalization

Spring (2008) identifies “four main interpretations of the process of educational globalization” in his review (p. 334). These are the world-culture, world-systems, postcolonialist, and culturalist interpretations. I will briefly define these interpretations, as they provide an important research context for this study. I should emphasize, however, that these perspectives at times overlap, such as the postcolonialist and culturalist views, but these divisions provide a helpful breakdown in the research on education and globalization.

The world-culture interpretation, often called “neo-institutionalist,” suggests that all cultures are moving toward integration into one world culture. This interpretation is often associated with leading comparative education researchers at Stanford: John Boli,

John Meyer, and Francisco Ramirez (Jones, 2007). They refer to this process as the

“world institutionalization of education” (Jones, 2007, p. 331). According to Jones, the primary interest in this interpretation is “how interests and motivations in educational theory, policy and practice intersect with and are driven by powerful global constructions of educational values and techniques” (p. 331). Although local uniqueness may persist, education around the world is becoming “increasingly standardized” (Jones, 2007, p.

331). World-culture theorists see education based on a Western model as a “global cultural ideal” based on a “belief in the educability of all people, the ,

23 and the importance of education in maintaining economic and democratic rights” (Spring,

2007, p. 335). This ideal model results from national elites drawing upon the expertise of emerging “global educational policy networks” (Rizvi & Engel, 2009, p. 531) to choose the best models available.

The world-systems approach, in contrast, sees the globe as divided between two major, unequal zones (Spring, 2008). These zones are a dominant center, which consists of the United States, the European Union, Japan, Australia, and other affluent nations, and the periphery, which comprises poorer, developing countries. In this perspective, the dominant countries seek to legitimize their power and to support forms of education that proliferate “capitalist modes of and analysis” (Spring, 2008, p. 335). Clayton

(2004) argues that world-systems analysis is an outgrowth of dependency theory but offers a more complex worldview. The world-systems perspective views a Westernizing and modernizing curriculum in developing countries as “serving the interests of the metropolitan powers and of the western educated local elites,” forming a “bridge between metropole and periphery” (Jones, 2007, p. 327). Many scholars see the system of international development assistance as implicated in reinforcing this center-periphery divide, as programs primarily serve donor interests “despite the idealist rhetoric surrounding them” (Jones, 2007, p. 327). Critics of the foreign-assistance system refer to this idealism as the “cartel of good intentions” (Easterly, 2002, p. 40). The role of foreign aid, both public and private, in supporting AUCA, SEEU and AUBG was crucial. Some scholars have viewed the emergence of these institutions through the world-systems lens

(Musha, 2004).

24 The postcolonialist view similarly argues that the predominance of Western schooling is the result of imposition by European imperialism and Christian missionaries

(Spring, 2008). Old-style colonialism and missionary work have taken on new forms through intergovernmental organizations such as the World Bank and the Organisation for Economic and Co-operation and Development, through multinational corporations, and through trade agreements such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Scholars within this perspective argue that, currently, “postcolonialist power promotes market economies, human capital education, and neoliberal school reforms all designed to promote the interests of rich nations and powerful multinational corporations” (Spring,

2008, p. 335). In contrast with the world-cultures perspectives, the influence of Western educational thought and models is not based on convergence upon ideal forms, but is the result of political and economic power. This power is legitimated through a transnational system of publishers, research organizations, universities, and testing institutions that privilege one form of knowledge above all others (Spring, 2008). Thus institutions like the European Union “often insist they are only providing forums for open and free exploration of educational ideas,” while in fact “they play a major hegemonic role in promoting neoliberal ideologies” (Rizvi and Engel, 2008, p. 533). For the postcolonialist, models and policies are not borrowed without some underlying political dynamic influencing who borrows from whom.

The culturalist interpretation shares the concern with the postcolonialists about the subjugation of some forms of knowledge by dominant forms of knowledge.

These scholars reject the idea that national elites rationally choose best models for their systems from a world culture of education. They also question the notion that forms of

25 knowledge are simply imposed upon local cultures, as the postcolonialists propose.

Instead, the culturalists see a “global flow” of multiple ways of knowing the world coexisting and interacting (Spring, p. 336). Theories of policy borrowing or educational transfer, which are central to this study, are from the culturalist perspective. Local actors choose from multiple models of education and “adapt them to local circumstances sometimes against the desires of local elites” (Spring, p. 336). Steiner-Khamsi (2004) writes from the culturalist perspective that “despite all the political and economic pressure on low-income countries to comply with ‘international standards’ in education, imported policies do not have homogenizing effects, that is, they do not lead to a convergence of educational systems” (p. 202–203). This current study shares the culturalist perspective. As Spring (2008) points out, the culturalist agenda recognizes

“multiple knowledges, alternative cultural frameworks for schooling, and the importance of studying the interaction between the local and the global” (p. 337, italics mine).

Models and policies are not simply grafted onto a local context. A process of adaptation must occur, which is then followed by an internalization/indigenization that can render the model or policy barely identifiable with the original, imported one (Phillips & Ochs,

2003).

A characteristic of the culturalist perspective is that it draws from many different disciplines in the social sciences. The conceptual framework for this study has been influenced by research on globalization from the disciplines of anthropology and sociology. Anthropologist Arjun Appadurai (1996), for example, describes globalization as “a deeply historical, uneven, and even localizing process” (p. 17). Alan DeYoung’s

(2011) influential study of the Kyrgyz Republic also draws upon anthropology and

26 ethnographic methods to understand student perspectives on the education system. This complex dynamic between global influences and the local is more nuanced than the postcolonialists might argue: “Globalization does not necessarily or even frequently imply homogenization or Americanization . . . and different societies appropriate the materials of modernity differently” (DeYoung, 2011, p. 17). Appadurai warns against what he sees as an overly simplistic center-periphery model that is prevalent in much of the research in the social sciences:

The new global cultural economy has to be seen as a complex, overlapping,

disjunctive order that cannot any longer be understood in terms of existing center-

periphery models (even those that might account for multiple centers and

peripheries). Nor is it susceptible to simple models of push and pull (in terms of

migration theory), or of surpluses and deficits (as in traditional models of balance

of trade), or of consumers and producers (as in most neo-Marxist theories of

development) (Appadurai, 1996, p. 32).

Appadurai’s perspective is consistent with the culturalists’ concept of global flow.

Sociologist Saskia Sassen (2007) similarly supports an approach that recognizes a complex relationship between the global and national. The central argument in her book,

Sociology of Globalization, is that the “embeddedness” of the global in the national

“engenders a variety of negotiations insofar as specific structurations of the global inhabit and partly denationalize what historically has been constructed and institutionalized as national” (p. 44). Her work explores the interaction between nation-states and global influences and calls for more detailed studies into “the particular ways in which different countries have handled and institutionalized this negotiation” (p. 44). The implication of

27 this approach is that the national is not in opposition to the global; the expansion of one does not diminish the other. An exchange and flow occurs between them that complicates our understanding of context.

Neoliberalism and Higher Education

The influence of neoliberalism on educational systems in recent decades has been widely discussed in the research literature (Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2009; Carnoy,

2000; Heyneman & Anderson, 2008; Klees, 2008; Ong, 2006; Steiner-Khamsi, Silova, and Johnson, 2006). Neoliberalism is often linked to the work of Friedrich Hayek, who argued that free markets, not government bureaucracies, were the most effective means of controlling production, pricing, and social institutions such as schools (Spring, 2008).

Klees (2008a) described a shift in economic thinking that occurred around 1980, when conservative “public-choice” economists became predominant in the shaping of policy.

Public-choice theory, according to Klees, is an extreme form of conservative neoclassical economics that asserts that because government is so incapable of effective intervention in the economy, it is better not to have any government intervention whatsoever (p. 311).

The school of thought led by public-choice economists and influenced by Hayek came to be called neoliberalism, indicating its connections with nineteenth-century liberalism.

The three pillars to the neoliberal agenda are fiscal austerity, privatization, and market liberalization (Stiglitz, 2002).

The finance-driven reforms associated with the neoliberal agenda have had a major impact on higher education (Altbach, 2004; Carnoy, 2000). The World Bank and

International Monetary Fund, with support from national ministries of finance, have played a significant role in promoting this agenda (Carnoy, 2000; Stiglitz, 2002). Since

28 much of the funding for education comes form the public sector, the World Bank and

IMF, through a set of structural adjustment loans, often attached specific conditions on national governments to introduce educational reforms (Carnoy, 2002). Although some followers of Hayek called for complete elimination of government involvement in schools, others argued in favor of retaining control through standards and testing (Spring,

2008). What emerged from the neoliberal agenda was a combination of free markets and privatization with government (and transnational) control through instruments such as testing, quality assurance, and other measures.

Privatization

Private higher education represents the fastest-growing education sector worldwide (Altbach et al, 2009; Levy, 2006). Scholars agree that the most common form of growth in private higher education is driven by demand (Altbach et al., 2009; Carnoy,

2002; Levy, 2006; World Bank, 2002). As Levy (2006) noted, “Where public budgets do not meet the still rapidly growing demand for higher education, students pay for alternatives” (p. 224). Similarly, the World Bank sees this flourishing of private institutions primarily as a market response to demand and changing labor markets.

However, the World Bank notes some caveats regarding market forces.

Although market forces presumably bring about greater diversity and choice for students, adverse consequences can result where regulation is inadequate. As reported by the World Bank (2002) “the absence of scholarship and loan programs can lead to a paradoxical situation in which students from high-income families are overrepresented in the tuition-free public universities and students from low-income families are overrepresented in private, fee-paying universities” (p. 73). This trend was apparent in

29 several formerly socialist countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, where “the introduction of tuition fees without accompanying student financial aid mechanisms has had a negative effect on equity” (p. 73). Bray (2002) similarly warns of the dangers of “unbridled private sector growth” that can result in “inferior quality” and

“exploitation” of poorly informed students (p. 58). Yet, as Altbach et al. (2009) pointed out, “[T]he diversity of postsecondary institutions . . . should (in theory) make higher education available to more people” (p. 37). Levy (1999) called into question whether what appeared to be diversity among institutions offered students a genuine choice. He examined the flourishing of private higher-education institutions through the framework of new institutionalism and found that internal and external pressures on institutions resulted in isomorphism. He argued that the literature on privatization should temper its findings of increased diversity by taking into account these isomorphic tendencies, which diminish the diversifying effects of privatization.

The market-based approach supported by the World Bank and other aid agencies views private higher education as an effective instrument for meeting societal demands for higher education (Altbach, et al., 2009). Supporters of this approach argue that the emergence of private institutions has broadened the choices available to students and provides greater higher education access to segments of the population that previously had been excluded (Altbach, et al., 2009; Heyneman & Anderson, 2008; World Bank,

2002). In addition, according to this view, competition from private institutions results in greater efficiency in the delivery of higher education (Altbach et al., 2009; Heyneman &

Anderson, 2008; World Bank, 2002).

30 Yet many scholars point out the negative impact of higher education privatization, particularly its impact on equity (Altbach, 2004; Bray, 2002; Carnoy,

2002; Klees, 2008; McGowan, 2004). Klees (2008b) argued that private higher education has “increased inequity and lowered efficiency” (p. 324). Although in wealthier countries such as the United States, a mixed system of public and private universities is possible, in poorer countries, privatization has led to a “proliferation of cheap, low-quality” institutions” (Klees, 2008b, p. 324). Privatization negatively affects disadvantaged families’ access to quality higher education, argue critics of this trend, and leads to inefficiency through the growth of poor-quality private institutions and the reduction of public support for high-quality institutions.

The growth of private higher education has been striking in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union (Altbach, 1999; Levy, 2006) “In this region,” argued Altbach

(1999), “governments are unable to devote sufficient funds to expanding public universities; the idea of state domination was discredited after the fall of Communism; and there is little regulation of the new private institutions” (p. 3). Where government funding declined, private institutions rose to meet growing demand for tertiary education. In this region during the decade following the fall of the Berlin Wall, “drastic reductions in public funding” were seen to be “jeopardizing the quality and sustainability of existing programs and even the survival of entire institutions” (World Bank, 2002, p.

58). The economic situation was ripe for the emergence of private higher education.

The rise of private higher education was not merely an accident of market economics; it can also be attributed to intentional policies and practices of the World

Bank and other international donors. Silova and Steiner-Khamsi (2008), in their overview

31 of reform agendas in Central Asia and the Caucasus, described a standard “post-socialist education reform package” brought to the region by international donors. Often this package was tied to structural adjustment loans from the World Bank and IMF. This reform package invariably included the privatization of higher education, seeking to introduce a competing model to the predominant state-run universities. The role of international donors in supporting the creation of the private institutions included in my study is vital. The global trend of privatization, often promoted by global actors, influenced the context in which AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG developed.

Soft Power

One of the key global actors behind the creation of the universities in this study was USAID, which saw the potential for soft power in helping to establish these institutions. Joseph Nye (2004) argued that in a knowledge-based global economy, soft power will play an increasingly vital role in world politics. Soft power “rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others” (Nye, 2004, p. 5), in contrast with hard power, which is achieved and exerted through coercion, or, in world politics, through the use of military force. The ability to attract is a central element to soft power. If others are attracted to your values and aims, then they are inclined to cooperate with you, even without specific threats or enticements to change their behavior. Soft power is not wielded solely through governmental agencies. In fact, Nye argues, “private sources of soft power are likely to become increasingly important in the global information age” (p.

17). The American University of Cairo (AUC) and the American University of Beirut

(AUB) serve as examples of universities as bearers of soft power. Bertelsen (2009b) described these institutions as bridges connecting the Middle East with the West.

32 Nye (2004) recognized the importance of reciprocity in soft-power relationships.

This process involves more than simply the imposition of a stronger country’s will upon a smaller nation. “The effects of globalization . . . depend upon the receiver as well as the sender” (p. 41). Citing philosopher Hannah Arendt, he wrote, “In reality, the process which Europeans dread as ‘Americanization’ is the emergence of the modern world with all its perplexities and implications” (p. 41). Universities can be significant carriers of soft power. It would be simplistic to imply that they do not have agency and are simply puppets in the hands of their government masters. Nongovernmental groups such as universities “develop soft power of their own that may reinforce or be at odds with official foreign policy goals” (p. 17). In his study on Middle East universities, Bertelsen

(2009b) underscores the reciprocal aspect of soft power, what he terms “reverse soft power,” stating that the American University of Beirut “plays a very special role in the relationship between the USA and the Middle East, as it improves the image of both toward the other” (p. 7). Similarly, faculty and administrators at the American University in Cairo have historically defended the interests of the host society. The newer foreign universities emerging in the region in locations such as Qatar’s Education City similarly contribute to the positive image of the host societies, while strengthening linkages with

Western elite academic networks. The American University in Cairo and the American

University of Beirut enjoy substantial economic support from the U.S. government, but many of the new foreign universities in the region do not have this support.

Altbach (2004) noted this shift away from government-centric power and influence in the relationships between centers and peripheries. In his view, since the end of the Cold War, profits and market-driven policies have superseded ideology as the

33 major influences, but governments still play a role, particularly through foreign-aid programs. “Governments are not entirely out of the picture—they seek to assist companies in their countries and have a residual interest in maintaining influence as well.

As in the Cold War era, countries and universities are not compelled to yield to the terms of those offering aid . . . but the pressures in favor of participation tend to prevail” (p. 6).

Using their soft power, donors—both governments and NGOs—pursued their agendas.

As Silova (2008) noted, “[D]ocumenting the complexity and dynamics of donor logic is extremely important for understanding how international development agencies have interacted with states, NGOs, and other donors, as well as how their initiatives have influenced post-socialist transformation reform processes nationally and internationally”

(Silova, 2008, p. 44). What emerged in the past two decades in the former Eastern bloc was an intricate web of actors at various levels—global, national, and local—wielding influence on the transformation of education in the region. These processes have not been fully explored in the research literature.

Policy and Model Borrowing

The influence of specific dominant models on higher education can be seen throughout history in various national contexts. Marginson and Rhoades (2002) point to the Catholic Church as a “powerful example of global influence in the structural and ideological underpinnings of higher education” (p. 288). Altbach (2004) noted the growing, but “not entirely new,” phenomenon of the export of academic institutions from one country to another (p. 13). In the past, this practice of exporting institutional models from the “metropole to developing countries” was associated with “both traditional colonialism and the government-sponsored foreign assistance programs of the Cold War

34 era” (Altbach, 2004, p. 13). Altbach offers as an example the interest of U.S. institutions in the Japanese higher education market in the 1980s. Over a dozen U.S. institutions opened campuses there, but very few remained in operation by 2000 (Altbach, 2004). The

U.S. system, now the predominant model in the export of higher education, has historically borrowed from British and German models of higher education (Altbach,

2004; Marginson & Rhoades, 2002). Steiner-Khamsi (2004a) sees similar historical parallels in the comparative education discourse. She notes that “the current semantics of globalization is reminiscent of earlier expansionist, transnational agendas. Earlier discursive educational campaigns such as the semantics of progress, democratization, modernization, and development each had an impact similar to that of globalization” (p.

5). To this semantic list, one might add the term “harmonization,” which has currency with the architects of the Bologna Process.

Steiner-Khamsi (2004b) discusses several rationales behind policy borrowing.

One is to seek validation or “certification” from abroad for a reform process implemented in a country. The reverse of this—“decertification”—is also commonly used to

“invalidate” certain policies or practices in order to bring about change or at least to gain political advantage. Another rationale is exporting for survival. As Steiner-Khamsi comments: “[T]he education export business is a lucrative one” (p. 205). The nonprofits and international NGOs involved in transferring programs or practices from one context to another are able to survive on the funding they receive to implement this transfer. She also cites three organizational reasons that explain to some extent how international organizations engage in educational transfer. First is the need of the organizations to show their constituents and donors that their work is having an impact. Second, she notes

35 that the division of labor in international organizations between the headquarters and field offices reflects a North-South, West-East flow of policies and practices. Headquarters conceives and a project, while the field offices, often staffed with local citizens, simply implement the project. This arrangement results in educational development practices that are “perhaps not in intent but certainly in effect, neocolonial” (p. 206). The third reason is that it is easier to manage a project that has been prepackaged at the head office and replicable across different contexts than to develop a program locally that is best-suited to a given context.

This prepackaging tendency contributes to a form of standardization in global higher education. King (2010) supports this view that policy internationalization is leading to global standardization. He too sees the profit motive behind this replication of policies and templates: “Among the primary explanations for policy internationalization in higher education and the diffusion of globally-conquering models, those based on economic competition appear especially influential” (King 2010, p. 589). He sees the adoption of global models largely as a response by national systems of higher education to increasing global competition. National governments, convinced that universities are

“critical instruments” for achieving economic prosperity in a knowledge-based economy, are inclined “to adopt the organizational models of the world’s leading economies, particularly those of the USA, and this includes for higher-education systems” (p. 589).

Sahadeo (2011) echoes this in his observation that unlike in the Soviet era in Central

Asia, many current officials and educators “pay, at the very least, lip service to the importance of adopting Western styles of learning that will, it is hoped, open paths to regional intellectual and economic development” (p. 105). They indeed view adopting

36 this model as a path to joining the modern world.

King (2009) describes policies and models that have traveled from country to country as “global templates.” One global template that has been adopted by numerous countries is new public . New public management is a governance model that views national systems of higher education as competitive markets, promotes decentralization through a devolution of administration and fundraising functions to institutions, and emphasizes performance metrics and output-based funding. In short, new public management favors a corporate model of governance. New public management is closely tied to the neoliberal agenda.

A second “global template” is systemic diversity, a mix of different types of public and private institutions. The highly differentiated, market-based system of autonomous institutions with diverse missions is viewed as having the greatest potential for delivering “the innovation, knowledge and skills necessary for highly-competitive economic performance by countries” (King, 2010). The countries in this study have moved toward this model of systemic diversity.

Altbach (2004) and Wildavsky (2010) have documented the spread of various export models. In recent years, Middle Eastern and Far Eastern countries—for example,

Singapore—have been destinations for the export of U.S. institutional and program models. Bertelsen (2009) has studied in particular the export of models to the Gulf region, where universities have had varying degrees of success in adapting them to the local environment. Even longstanding institutions such as the American University in

Cairo (AUC) and the American University of Beirut (AUB) have struggled to achieve integration with the national higher-education system. High tuition at these institutions

37 “can create an image of aloofness and isolation from society at large” (Bertelsen, 2009, p.

5). This aloofness of AUC is portrayed in the popular Egyptian comedy film Saidi at the

American University (Bertelsen, 2009, p. 5). The problems of AUC and AUB appear to be shared by other private universities in the Gulf region. Bertelsen observed that “there appears to be a lack of integration, collaboration, specialization and division of labor between private higher education and national public higher education in the Gulf” (p. 5).

Nevertheless, the very presence of foreign models and private alternatives to state education changes the dynamic within the higher-education system.

Models are often exported through the creation of new institutions, but they can also be grafted onto existing institutions. In his interesting comparison of the American

University in Bulgaria and the American University of Central Asia, Newton-Smith

(2007), a board member of OSI, found an illustration of the pros and cons of creating a new institution (AUBG) versus reforming an existing one (AUCA). AUBG, he argues,

“largely replicated the curriculum and teaching style of an American college” under the guidance of the University of Maine. A positive outcome of this “creation by transplantation” was that AUBG received U.S. accreditation early. The downside was that the university “has been slow to integrate fully into the local education scene” (p. 36, italics in original). And it is “a costly operation” because of its reliance on expatriate faculty. In contrast, since AUCA was formed on the foundation of an existing local institution, it was able to grant Kyrgyz degrees. AUCA also inherited a local faculty, which kept costs low. Newton-Smith concluded that “reforming an existing local institution enhances the chances of sustainability but makes real innovation more challenging,” whereas transplanting or importing a Western-style university “gives

38 instant innovation, but makes sustainability challenging” (p. 36). Newton-Smith’s thinking on this subject is highly pertinent to my study, given the role of OSI at all three institutions.

Yet, the process of how these exported models are adapted to their new environment is not sufficiently explored in the research literature. Steiner-Khamsi (2004) insists that the question of “how these externally induced reforms are locally implemented is an issue of great importance” (p. 5). She adds, “Borrowing is not copying. It draws our attention to processes of local adaptation, modification, and resistance to global forces in education” (Steiner-Khamsi, 2004, p. 5). In other words, no foreign model transplanted to a new environment remains unchanged by that environment.

Phillips and Ochs (2003) have devised a model for analyzing the policy- internationalization process. They postulate what they see as four principal stages in the borrowing process: cross-national attraction, decision, implementation, and internalization/indigenization. These stages are presented in diagram form in figure 2.1.

39 Figure 2.1: Four Stages of Policy Borrowing

From Phillips, D. & Ochs, K. (2003). Processes of policy borrowing in education: Some explanatory and analytical devices. Comparative Education, 39(4), 451 – 461.

The first stage of this process is cross-national attraction, which encompasses two characteristics: impulses and externalizing potential. By impulses, Phillips and Ochs

(2003) imply the preconditions for borrowing. Preconditions such as change within the political system, internal dissatisfaction, and/or a negative external evaluation (for example, poor results on an international standardized test) can set the stage for borrowing. These impulses often spark a search for foreign models to address perceived

40 problems in a country. Phillips and Ochs (2003) identify six characteristics of policies or practices that might be borrowed that make them attractive to the potential borrower.

These include: “guiding philosophy or ideology, ambitions/goals, strategies, enabling structures, processes, and techniques” (p. 453).

In stage two of the policy-borrowing model—decision—those agencies seeking to borrow a policy or practice take measures to bring about change. Measures may be theoretical, which involves framing circumstances in such a way that makes borrowing an attractive option. Other measures are termed “phony” to denote policy proposals brought from overseas that have no hope of ever being implemented in the home country.

Realistic/Practical decisions are based on the undisputed success of a model in a different context, which makes it easy for borrowers to justify them to the public. The process of borrowing may hold promise, but it can also be fraught with danger. The quick-fix phenomenon can introduce policies or practices that are utterly unsuitable to a specific context, resulting in disaster. Phillips and Ochs (2003) point to the example of outcomes- based education, which was borrowed in post-apartheid South Africa, where it lacked sufficient infrastructure for successful introduction.

Implementation is the third stage in the policy borrowing cycle. The process of adaptation is central in this stage, and thus it is the most relevant to this study. Adaptation depends on contextual factors that might present resistance to or support for the policy or model to be borrowed. Adaptation might be affected by what Phillips and Ochs (2003) call “significant actors” (p. 456), which might include local education authorities or chief academic officers. The borrowers might also find their efforts subverted by those opposed to the new policy. At stage four—internalization/indigenization—the policy or

41 practice is fully accepted as part of the borrowing country’s system of education (Phillips and Ochs, 2003).

The issue of context is a central concern to Phillips and Ochs (2003). They enumerate five forces of context that affect the borrowing process: “contextual forces that affect the motives behind cross-national attraction, contextual forces that act as a catalyst to spark cross-national inquiry, contextual interaction that affects the stage of the policy development, contextual interaction that affects the policy development process, and contextual interaction that affects the potential for policy implementation” (p. 457).

Ultimately, Phillips and Ochs urge caution when it comes to borrowing policies or practices, citing the many “dangers inherent in any quick decision making based on a sudden enthusiasm for an educational ideal born and nurtured and brought to maturity in a foreign context” (p. 460). Nevertheless, their scholarship provides a framework for better understanding this complex process.

Private Higher Education and Legitimacy in Eastern Europe

In many ways, the process of policy borrowing can be observed in the efforts of private universities in Central and Eastern Europe to achieve legitimacy. Levy (2007) notes the rapid rise of private higher education in the former Eastern bloc, where it had not been present for half a century. This rapid rise created a challenge for private institutions to be seen as legitimate providers of higher education. In this region, there was a “meteoric leap in private-institution enrollment from near zero to up to 30% of total national enrollment” (p. 280). Geiger (1985) identifies three rationales for the rise of private higher education: more higher education was demanded than was provided by the state; groups desired different kinds of schools from those provided; and qualitatively

42 better education was sought. These rationales can be observed in the wave of privatization across the post–Cold-War Eastern bloc. The legal framework in the region was underdeveloped, according to Slantcheva (2007). A legal basis for allowing nongovernmental provision of higher education was created in some Eastern-bloc countries soon after the fall of the regimes (as early as 1990 in Bulgaria, Hungary,

Romania, and Poland). During the early transition years, however, the state’s involvement in private higher education was limited, whether in providing a legal framework or funding. Without this state-certified legitimacy, private higher-education institutions often sought alternative sources of legitimacy.

Boyadjieva and Slantcheva’s (2007) study of private higher education in Bulgaria sheds light on shifting public perceptions in the region. Using poll data from 2004,

Boyadjieva and Slantcheva found that the Bulgarian public increasingly saw private higher education as legitimate. By 2004–5, private institutions accounted for more than

30% of all enrollments in Bulgaria. In response to the question of what type of institution would the respondent choose if money were not a concern, most chose a state university—55.8%. The poll found that 10.6% would seek a private institution, while

28.7% said that the type did not matter and they would factor in other considerations

(Boyadjieva and Slantcheva, 2007, p. 230). Interestingly, the poll also indicated that those who prefer private institutions tend to believe that they are less corrupt, more student-centered, and more responsive to the needs of the labor market. The evolving attitudes of toward private forms of higher education reflected changes in across the former Eastern bloc as mixed systems of public and private higher education became more common.

43 Universities: National Policy and International Actors

In her study of six universities established in the former Yugoslavia, Bacevic

(2014) provides insights into the interplay of national policy and the international community. She describes the six institutional case studies she examines as indicative of a “dual track” of universities. The cases included the University of Pristina (Kosovo) and its parallel campus in Kosovska Mitrovice; the International University of Novi Pazar and

State University of Novi Pazar in the southern Serbian town Sandzhak; and in Tetovo,

Macedonia, the University of Tetovo and South East European University. On one side of the dual track were Western-oriented universities that, like the European Union and the

Bologna Process, placed emphasis on integration and convergence. On the other side were what Bacevic (2014) calls “ethnic” universities that focused on the “right of minorities to access higher education in their mother tongue” (p. 131). She sees in these institutions the dynamic interplay of the international community and local actors:

“Although international actors play a significant role in policymaking, domestic (local) actors also utilize the divided and/or post-conflict conflict to pursue specific agendas” (p.

132). She argues that the universities in Novi Pazar illustrate two paradigms for approaching the issue of minorities in higher education. One views higher education as an

“instrument of the development (and ‘survival’) of a particular ethnoreligious group” (p.

164). This approach addresses the desires of the ethnic group and underscores its distinct social and political identity.

The second paradigm views higher education “as a means of integration, primarily defined as integration into the majority political and social structures” (p. 164).

This second paradigm underscores the preeminence of the broader context of the state

44 over specific group identity. Bacevic’s (2014) study portrays universities as points of negotiation between global and local actors, each with specific agendas. Yet the institutions are not simply pawns in a larger game. They too have to negotiate their position with global and local actors and find some way to function as higher-education institutions.

Glonacal Heuristic

Marginson and Rhoades (2002) critique much of the scholarship on globalization processes in higher education and call for a more nuanced approach to the study of globalization and higher education that recognizes the global, national, and local dimensions of universities. To encourage researchers to explore these influences on universities, they created a framework. They call their framework the “glonacal agency heuristic.” (Glonacal rhymes with slow jackal).

Too much of the literature, they argue, focuses on policies at the level of the state, thereby “overlooking local responses and variations” (p. 286). To understand this complex phenomenon, they argue, research must focus on the “actual practices of academics” in classrooms, departments, and institutions (p. 286). Even as the global spread of standardized education models is witnessed, peculiarities of higher-education systems persist. In their view, the comparative-education field lacks research that

“attends to local response and reality, explores local institutions, and considers local practices” (p. 286). Moreover, the role of reciprocity in the export of models must be studied:

We need to study how local actors and institutions extend their activities to the

international stage. In what ways do local universities and departments move in

45 21

international circles, not just subject to international forces, but being subjects that

exercise influence regionally and globally? (p. 286)

Universities are global actors influencing and influenced by international trends and

factors. They are “globally, nationally, and locally implicated” (p. 288). For this reason,

to understand the realities of these institutions, this complex, dynamic interaction of the

global, national, and local influences within a given university must be explored.

Figure 2.2 Glonacal Agency Heuris tic

Global Global human agencies agency

Local human National agency agencies

National Local agencies human agency

A significant point made by Marginson and Rhoades is that this process is complex. It is

not cookie-cutter replication of a policy or model directed from a government in the

affluent global north. Individuals and institutions at the national and local levels have

agency and make choices that are hugely important to this process. It should be noted,

however, that Marginson and Rhoades published their glonacal agency heuristic in 2002,

less than three years after the signing of the Bologna Declaration. At that time, the

influence Bologna would wield on higher education systems in the region might not have

46 been so apparent. Thus, their analysis of the global, national, and local agencies overlooks the influential role of regional agencies such as Bologna and the European

Union. In this study, the added dimension of regional influence emerges as crucial to understanding the evolution of AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG.

Often many of the individuals in leadership positions or who sit on the boards of these institutions have affiliations with global institutions and bring the agendas of those institutions to their roles. At SEEU, the agendas of EU and U.S. representatives collided early in the university’s existence. Among the many challenges facing the university was that of maintaining its mission of providing Albanian-. According to

Farrington and Abazi (2009), from the initial years of operation up until 2003, the university was under “major pressure” from the U.S. embassy and USAID to move rapidly to increase English-language instruction, in effect pushing to create “a kind of

American institution” (p. 14). No other donors exerted pressure on this issue, and the

“strongly European-oriented board members managed to resist this on academic and practical grounds” (Farrington & Abazi, 2009, p. 14). Thus the interplay among the various actors within an institution can be fraught with tension.

The glonacal agency heuristic recognizes the interconnected flow between the three domains—what culturalist researchers in comparative education call “global flow”

(Spring, 2008, p. 336). Agency in this model refers to the capacity of organizations and individuals within these domains to act of their own accord. The hexagonal model captures the dynamism of this process with arrows that cut across the domains, underscoring the reciprocity of influences across the different domains. Marginson and

Rhoades suggest that by employing their heuristic, “we can consider global systems of

47 activity and regulation alongside national . . . and local political relationship . . . we can examine the inter-relationship between different global agencies” (p. 305). With its focus on individual agency, the model also allows researchers to explore the “globally networked character” of many university faculty and administrators—for example, how their involvement in international professional societies or associations might influence their approach to work within their own institutions (p. 305). In addition, the heuristic implies that layers of history, culture, and conditions are embedded in the model and must be taken into account when analyzing the inter-relationships of the three domains.

Organizational Adaptation

In previous sections, I have focused on global tendencies and influences on the cases included in this study, as well as on national factors. Research on organizational adaptation provides a framework for understanding the local, i.e., within-institution influences. Cameron (2000) defines organizational adaptation as “modifications and alterations in the organization or its components in order to adjust to changes in the external environment. Its purpose is to restore equilibrium to an imbalanced condition.

Adaptation generally refers to a process, not an event, whereby changes are instituted in organizations.” This process is not necessarily a reactive one, as some institutions can be proactive in anticipation of change.

Cameron concludes that adaptive universities share characteristics of both loosely coupled and tightly coupled systems. A loosely coupled system has weak connections among its various elements, whereas a tightly coupled system has a centralized hierarchy that directs the organization toward specific goals. Institutions that encompass contradictory elements “will produce the adaptability necessary for effective institutions

48 of higher education in the future” (p. 284). Thus, an institution that is at once global and local will be most likely to achieve sustainability.

Cameron’s study provides a foundation for the research of Barbara Sporn (1999) on how universities adapt to different socioeconomic environments. Sporn used the case- study and grounded-theory methodologies to study six U.S. and European universities over a four-year period. The six institutions were New York University (NYU), the

University of Michigan, the University of California–Berkeley, Universität St. Gallen

(Germany), Universita Bocconi (Italy), and Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien (Austria). Sporn collected data by conducting multiple in-depth interviews with 180 senior administrators at these institutions. In addition, she analyzed archival documents related to institutional strategies and organizational structure.

Based on the six case studies she conducted, Sporn sought to develop a theory of adaptation in higher education. She organized her findings into commonalities and differences in her cases:

Table 2.1 Characteristics of Adaptive Universities Commonalities Differences Focused Mission and Goals Role of Leadership Professional Management Environmental Pressure Collegial Governance Organization Culture Institutional Autonomy Financial Vulnerability Differentiation Mechanisms University Structure Importance of Incremental Process of Change Administration Adapted from Adaptive university structures: An analysis of adaptation to socioeconomic environments of US and European Universities, by B. Sporn. London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, p. 258.

49 These findings indicate that not all adaptive universities are alike. Although they share some characteristics, there remain many differences in critical areas such as the role of leadership. Contextual factors differed for these institutions as well, and the institutions experienced different forms of pressure from the external environment. In addition to these characteristics, Sporn indicates which factors in her cases impeded or enhanced an institution’s adaptation. Enhancing factors included: professional management, entrepreneurial spirit, collegial governance, supportive leadership, and a differentiated structure. Institutional autonomy and diversified funding were also found to be enhancing factors. Factors that Sporn found to impede institutional adaptation included resource dependence, legal regulations, a culture of perseverance, weak integration, and absence of goals and strategies.

Sporn noted some differences between the U.S. and European institutions in her study. Adaptation at the U.S. institutions was characterized by “a mission integrating external demands, strong leadership and shared governance, as well as decentralized schools and colleges” (p. 267). At the U.S. institutions, she found that integration mechanisms, such as a network for linking the decentralized basic units and an inclusive approach to planning were major factors contributing to adaptation.

Similarly, she reported differences between private and public institutions. At private universities, she found three major factors influencing adaptation: an externally oriented mission . . . widely shared among the community, a decentralized structure to fit the different needs of the environment, and financial autonomy to enable the implementation of new and innovative strategies” (p. 267). The dependence of public institutions on external entities such as state or federal governments hindered their ability

50 to respond rapidly to changing conditions. Private institutions that are held accountable by their adherence to their own mission, but are otherwise autonomous in setting their direction, had an adaptive advantage over public universities that are more susceptible to political vicissitudes that can have a deleterious effect on their budgets and strategic priorities.

Across all the institutions in her study, Sporn highlighted three crucial aspects: the mission statement, leadership, and integration. She emphasized the importance of university missions for guiding decision making and for planning the activities of university managers and committees. The institutional mission also served as an important source of identification and integration for the members of the decentralized and loosely coupled academic community. Institutions with a clear sense of mission were better equipped to respond effectively to threats.

Leadership also played a key role, a point that underscores the significance of agency among local influences on adaptation. University leaders often function as

“change agents” by providing commitment and vision to their institutions (p. 284). In addition to vision, Sporn found that a more participatory form of leadership contributed to successful adaptation. Involving different interest groups in decision making created a sense of shared governance. Sporn’s cases showed that this approach forms the basis for

“lasting adaptive capacity” (p. 284). “The context of dynamic institutional environments and a new definition of the relationship between faculty and administration make [shared governance] necessary and possible” (284). This leadership approach, together with a focused mission and practices that promote integration within an institution, prepared these institutions to adapt to their changing environments.

51 Sporn’s exploratory study provides findings that are highly relevant to this study.

A limitation in her findings is that she collected her data in the mid- to late-1990s, and thus many of the recent trends of the past decade and a half are not examined in her study. Another limitation in her study is that she chooses to focus only on senior administrators. She did not seek out the perspectives of faculty, students, or external observers on the adaptive strategies of the universities. In her findings, Sporn does not seek to connect her cases with a larger global context, something that the present study seeks to do. For example, she indicates that environmental pressures and financial vulnerability differ for the institutions under her study. Are these environmental pressures linked to larger global currents? She does not address this question in her study.

Summary

In this review of the literature, I have provided a synopsis of the currents within comparative education research that are most relevant to my study. I have situated my study within the existing literature and suggested where it might build upon the scholarship that has preceded it. In the following chapter, I will detail my research methodology for this study.

52 Chapter III: Methods

This study explores how an imported model of higher education—the private, nonprofit institutional model—is adapted to different contexts in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. I examined three institutions that emerged during the post–Cold

War transition period and were conceived with similar purposes, yet had to adapt to different sociopolitical environments. The central focus of this study is how global, national, and local factors have influenced these institutions’ adaptation.

Case-Study Method

The focus of this study is the complex process of adaptation at the institutional level; therefore, I chose a qualitative case-study method for this research. According to

Creswell, the case-study method involves the exploration of a “bounded system” or

“multiple bounded systems,” as in this study, over a period of time through “detailed, in- depth data collection involving multiple sources of information (e.g., observations, interviews, audiovisual material, and documents and reports), and reports a case description and case-based themes” (Creswell, 2007, p. 73, italics in original). I used a multi–case-study approach in this study to examine each institution individually through within-case analysis, followed by cross-case analysis. According to George and Bennett

(2005), “[T]he strongest means of drawing inferences from case studies is the use of a combination of within-case analysis and cross-case comparisons within a single study”

(p. 18). Three institutions from different former Eastern-bloc countries were the subjects of this study: the American University of Central Asia, South East European University, and the American University in Bulgaria.

53 Case studies explore a phenomenon in depth within a specific, bounded context.

The bounded context for this study was an individual institution, within which the complex process of adaptation occurs. Many factors can influence this process of adaptation, and this study sought to better understand their interrelationships. This focus on relationships and processes is characteristic of the case-study method (Denscombe,

2003, p. 31). Yin (2009) argues that case studies are most effective in answering how– or why–research-questions when the focus is on contemporary events and does not require control over behavioral elements, as was true of this study. According to Denscombe

(2003), case studies tend to be holistic rather than deal with isolated factors. My approach attempted to capture a holistic picture of my cases rather than to isolate specific variables, as one might in a quantitative study. Case studies provide sufficient detail for the researcher to “unravel” the complexities of a given situation (Denscombe, 2003, p. 31).

The interaction between global, national and local factors is a complex negotiation (King,

2010; Marginson & Rhoades, 2003; Sassen, 2007); thus, collecting rich data from multiple sources was crucial to understanding this complicated process of adaptation. The case-study method is appropriate for exploring at an institutional level the colorations of this process. Although individual case studies cannot be separated from their contexts, the multi-case approach of my study generated findings that may contribute to a better understanding of similar phenomena in other contexts. The drawing of inferences from my study was done inductively, particularly at the cross-case analysis phase, as patterns emerged from the data collected.

This study is within the constructivist paradigm and shares many characteristics common to qualitative studies, as ennumerated by Creswell (2007). First, this study

54 involved data I collected in the field at the sites where the processes under investigation occur. Second, the researcher is a key instrument in the process. I did all the data collection. Third, I employed multiple sources of data: interviews, focus groups, document analysis, and nonparticipant observation. Fourth, data analysis is inductive.

Drawing from the data, I looked for patterns that might indicate a theory of university adaptation. Fifth, my focus was on how participants understood the process of adaptation, not on my preconceived idea of how adaptation occurs. Sixth, the research was emergent. Although a specific plan was in place, I allowed for a degree of flexibility in modifying it based on insights reached at different stages of data analysis and collection.

Seventh, this study provides a holistic account, offering a complex picture of the process of university adaptation. Rather than seeking cause-and-effect relationships, I examined complex interactions of global, national, and local factors within the process of university adaptation.

A further strength of the case-study method is that it allows the researcher to use a variety of sources, types of data, and research methods (Denscombe, 2003). In this study,

I draw data from multiple sources through a variety of methods. I gathered data through document analysis, survey interviews of faculty, focus groups with students, interviews with key constituents, and nonparticipant observation during site visits. This multi-case approach using multiple sources of comparable data from each university presented opportunities for cross-case analysis and strengthened the external validity of the study

(Merriam, 1998).

The insights from this study can help scholars and practitioners understand the dynamics within an institution that is based on an imported model of higher education

55 and that is striving to adapt to its national context and sustain its operations. I selected three institutions from different post-transition countries for this study. I opted to study three institutions so that differentiation in adaptation strategies could not simply be attributed to differences between two countries. By studying three institutions, commonalities and differences that emerged across three contexts become more meaningful. This small number of cases, however, can be seen as a limitation. George and Bennett (2005) warn that “case study methods involve a trade-off among the goals of attaining theoretical parsimony, establishing explanatory richness, and keeping the number of cases to be studied manageable” (p. 31). Practical matters of time and resources influenced my choice of three cases, a limitation that must be acknowledged.

Conceptual Framework

In their critique of current theoretical approaches in comparative education,

Marginson and Rhoades (2002) call for a more nuanced approach to the study of globalization and higher education that recognizes the global, national, and local dimensions of universities. They call their framework the “glonacal agency heuristic.”

This model provided the overall analytical framework for approaching the case studies included in this work. Within this overarching framework, several key theoretical currents, described in my literature review, informed my study.

My examination of the global influences on the institutions under investigation was informed primarily by the theory of policy borrowing as articulated in the comparative education research literature. Policy borrowing is typically associated with what is characterized as a neoliberal agenda in global higher education that entails privatization of the education sector, the adoption of Western models of higher education,

56 and the introduction of new managerialism into university administrative practice (Deem,

2001; King, 2009; Levy, 2006; Steiner-Khamsi, Silova, & Johnson, 2008). The role of global institutions such as the OECD and the World Bank, as well as transnational processes such as the Bologna implementation, in advancing specific educational practices and values has been especially significant in recent decades (Altbach, Reisberg,

& Rumbley, 2009). Other global influences on these institutions include international agencies such as OSI, which has provided all three universities with substantial funding.

These actors often support a specific agenda that can influence how these universities adapt. Global influences are particularly significant for these institutions, which were created largely through the support of global, rather than national, actors. Foreign governments, particularly the U.S. government through USAID, have influenced the development of these institutions. Related to this governmental influence is the concept of soft power as articulated by Joseph Nye (2004). This concept is considered in the discussion of global influences on institutional adaptation.

Several aspects of the national system of higher education influence how institutions adapt to different challenges. Historically embedded attitudes toward higher education, legislation, and changing student demographics are examples of national influences on institutional adaptation. Moreover, national politics can affect university development in many ways. Political unrest or shifting political winds, for example, can create serious difficulties for institutions, particularly if they are closely associated with a foreign government.

At the local level, this study explores elements within the institution itself that have influenced its adaptation to its environment. My exploration of the local influences

57 on these institutions drew from Barbara Sporn’s (1999) theory of adaptation in higher education, which contains elements of organizational theory and theories of leadership.

Case Selection

My study focuses on a specific time period and region. Following the fall of the

Berlin Wall in 1989 and the subsequent end of the Soviet Union, higher-education systems in the former Eastern bloc became fertile ground for policy borrowing and the emergence of a wide range of private providers of higher education (Altbach, Reisberg,

& Rumbley, 2009; Levy, 2006; World Bank, 2002). From these numerous institutions, I narrowed my focus in accordance with specific criteria related to my research purpose. I have stated the initial criteria—historical and geographical— for selecting my cases: the institutions emerged following 1989 in the former Eastern bloc, which includes the former Soviet Union. Moreover, my focus is specifically on the private institutions that emerged where no private higher education had operated in recent history; thus the institutions had to be private.

Although all universities are to some extent subject to global influences, I sought to include in this study institutions with a distinct global imprint. For this reason, one of the criteria I used in my selection of institutions is that they received substantial direct funding from the U.S. government, namely, USAID. Other key sources of financial support, such as OSI, further underscore the association of these universities with the neoliberal agenda prevalent throughout this period (Silova & Steiner-Khamsi, 2008). In their glonacal agency heuristic, Marginson and Rhoades (2002) refer to entities like

USAID and OSI as global agents. The prominent place of these global agents in the development of these institutions is a primary reason for their inclusion in this study. As

58 George and Bennett (2005) note, case-study researchers often select their cases with the goal of “providing the strongest possible inferences on particular theories—most-likely or least-likely cases for a theory . . . ” (p. 32). I selected as cases three institutions that are most likely to be affected by policy/model borrowing and most likely to reflect the dynamic interaction of global, national, and local influences due to the crucial role of global actors at their inception.

I selected three institutions that meet these criteria, the American University of

Central Asia, South East European University, and the American University in Bulgaria.

I approached each case with the same methodology. Yin (2009) argues that multiple case studies “should follow a replication, not a sampling logic” (p. 60); therefore, my goal was to replicate my study at three sites. Each case is a whole in itself, but replication of my methodology strengthens the analytic conclusions of the study (Yin, 2009). Three cases drawn from three different contexts within the region provided insights into how this imported model of higher education took root within a country and adapted over time.

The institutions are similar in conception, mission, and structure, but differ in context; thus the interaction between the model and the context will come to the forefront in my study.

Site Visits and Data Collection Procedures

I completed site visits to AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG over the course of the 2012-

13 academic year to conduct interviews and focus groups, engage in nonparticipant observation and collect documents. Each visit was a minimum of eight working days. I conducted focused in-person interviews of the faculty at the selected institutions. Focused interviews follow a certain set of questions but remain open-ended and take on the form

59 of a conversation (Yin, 2009). The faculty interview protocol is included in Appendix C.

The interviews lasted 40 to 55 minutes. At each university, I used purposeful sampling to identify participants in my study, as is common in qualitative case studies (Merriam,

1998). In this study, the goal of purposeful sampling was to capture the heterogeneity in the population of faculty and students (Maxwell, 2005). In advance of my visit, I received permission to conduct my study from the presidents of each institution, who then designated a contact who served as my primary liaison for facilitating my visit. A sample of my permission request sent to the university president/rector is included in Appendix

F. I sent an email to all faculty members, asking them to contact me to schedule an interview. I was then able to select from among those willing to be interviewed a sample that represented a diversity of departments, roles in the university, and local and expatriate faculty members. The sample of faculty at each institution also roughtly approximated student enrollment in departments, as well as the demographic breakdown of local versus expatriate faculty. I was able to schedule the first few days of my visit in advance of my arrival. Once I began interviewing, I asked the interviewees to encourage colleagues to respond to my interview request. This snowballing technique allowed me to fill out my visit schedule with interviews and build a sample that approximated the general faculty profile. My site visits occurred in the following order: the American

University in Bulgaria (AUBG), South East European University (SEEU), and the

American University of Central Asia AUCA. Table 3.1 indicates the site-visit schedule.

Table 3.1 Site Visit Timetable Date Site Comments Sept 17–27, 2012 AUBG Site Visit/Data Collection at AUBG March 25–April 3, 2013 SEEU Site Visit/Data Collection SEEU May 19–June 3, 2013 AUCA Site Visit/ Data Collection, Graduation Ceremony, AUCA

60 June 17–23, 2013 AUCA Return Visit: Faculty Training Workshop & Focus Group

Although my initial intent was to make one visit to each institution, I made a return visit to AUCA soon after my initial trip so I could gather additional data.

For focus groups, with the assistance of a university gatekeeper, I sent out a call to participate to all students. The gatekeeper at each university was an administrator with a broad scope of responsibilities at the institution. At AUCA, this person was the director of development and outreach. At SEEU, it was the director of international programs. At

AUBG, it was the director of student services. I then confirmed participants I selected from those responding to my request. I intentionally selected participants who would reflect the diversity of the student population at each university. In setting up the focus groups, I sought support from the designated gatekeeper, as well as from the faculty and administrators whom I interviewed in the first days of my site visit. The gatekeeper assisted in finding a classroom or conference space suitable for the focus group. Faculty members whom I met encouraged students to take part in the focus groups. The focus groups were held midway through my visit and toward the end of my visit. This allowed me to meet informally some students and encourage them to spread the word of the focus groups. As I became a familiar face on campus, observing classes and taking part in some events, more students were willing to sign up for the focus groups. I conducted two focus groups at each institution, with 3–11 participants in each group.

At AUCA, I conducted two focus groups with five participants in the first and three in the second. Participants ranged from freshmen to seniors and represented journalism, anthropology, economics, business, and international politics majors.

Participants were mainly from Kyrgyzstan, but some were from Tajikistan and

61 Turkmenistan, a reflection of the overall student demographic at AUCA. My visit to

Bishkek fell at the end of the spring semester; thus, several students were no-shows for the second focus group because they were busy preparing for final exams. All of the students were undergraduates. I made a return visit to AUCA only two weeks after my initial visit. The return was necessitated by a work obligation, but it gave me the opportunity to conduct a focus group and additional interviews as well as to have informal conversations with faculty and administrators.

At SEEU, I conducted two focus groups, with a total of 19 students. On the sign- in form, I asked students to indicate their native language, since a central component of the SEEU mission is to address language issues. Two students indicated Macedonian, one indicated Turkish, one indicated English/Albanian, and 15 indicated Albanian. When asked their “hometown,” students reported several cities in Macedonia. Fourteen students were from Tetovo. Two were from Skopje, and one each was from Prilep, Gostivar, and

Ohrid. Most of the students were from the Department of Business, majoring either in business administration (3) or business (9). In addition, three students were majoring in law, one in computer science and technology, and one in public administration. Both focus groups were held at the main campus in Tetovo. Participants were mostly undergraduates in the second or third year of study; two master’s students also took part. One of the focus groups at SEEU consisted of members of the student government, who wanted to take part in the focus group together.

At AUBG, I also conducted two focus groups with students, the first with seven participants and the second with four. Students represented the geographic diversity of

AUBG. Of the 11, three were from Bulgaria, three were from Russia, two were from

62 Georgia, one was from Albania, one was from Kyrgyzstan, and one was from the United

States. Students ranged from freshmen to seniors and all were undergraduates. I conducted the focus groups in the conference room of one of the residence halls.

Students also represented a range of majors, including business, European studies, computer science, and journalism, and a majority of the participants were pursuing double majors.

The size of my sample for the faculty interviews was dependent on time constraints, but it met my expectations. My initial estimate was that 12 to 15 faculty members should be included in my sample. The institutions under investigation are relatively small—with, at recent count 110, 176 and 60 faculty members, respectively, at the American University of Central Asia, South East European University, and the

American University in Bulgaria. Several of the administrators whom I interviewed also teach, but I counted them as administrators rather than faculty.

At AUCA, I conducted interviews with 11 faculty members and five administrators. Of the faculty members, five were expatriates (U.S. and UK) and six were from Kyrgyzstan. Of the administrators, two were expatriates (U.S.) and three local. The faculty participants came from several departments, including business, law, , professional education, economics, computer science, English, and political science; one was an instructor for the first-year seminar. At AUCA, I had numerous informal conversations with faculty members as well as several trustees. These informal conversations were a form of nonparticipant observation. I conducted additional stakeholder interviews during my visit, including with officials from USAID and the Aga

Khan Foundation as well as former AUCA administrators.

63 During my visit to SEEU, I was given the use of a workstation in a faculty office space. This allowed me to interact with several faculty members in my office and neighboring offices, which made it easy to schedule interviews. In all, I interviewed 12 faculty members, including three expatriates and nine native to Yugoslavia, if not to

Macedonia. I conducted interviews with six administrators, including several who also teach in the classroom, so the distinction between faculty and administrator at SEEU was less clear than at AUBG or AUCA. Of the six administrators, two were expatriate (U.S. and UK) and four were from Yugoslavia. Faculty members were from a range of disciplines, including business, languages, , economics, public administration, and law. Although I spent most of my time at the main campus in Tetovo,

I also visited the Skopje branch of SEEU for interviews and observation.

At AUBG, I interviewed 14 faculty members. Seven indicated their native country as Bulgaria, four indicated the United States, and one each indicated New

Zealand, Italy, and Greece. Faculty participants taught in a range of departments, including arts, languages, and literatures (3), business administration (4), political science and European studies (2), computer science (1), history and civilizations (1), mathematics and science (1), economics (1), and journalism and mass communications (1). In addition to faculty members, I interviewed four current administrators, two staff members, and a former administrator. The faculty members whom I interviewed were full-time faculty.

AUBG has a number of adjunct faculty, who are Bulgarian natives and teach by some accounts as much as 40% of the courses. I was not successful in arranging a meeting with any of these faculty members.

64 Questions for the interviews and focus groups followed the protocols included in

Appendix C, D, and E. Table 3.2 indicates how the questions elicited data related to my research questions.

Table 3.2 Crosswalk Table Research Question Interview Questions How does a foreign model of higher education adapt within different national contexts? All Questions. Most directly, C5, C6 To what extent is the development of these institutions affected by global, national, and local influences? A5, A6, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5 To what extent do the mission and values of these institutions influence the institutional environment? A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 How do these institutions’ adaptation strategies evolve in response to various external and internal challenges? C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6

At times I modified the phrasing of questions for clarity and added details from local context to aid in the participants’ understanding of the gist of my question, but otherwise adhered to the protocols.

I was generally satisfied with the response rate for participants. My schedules at each institution were full, and I maximized my time on each visit. Faculty and administrators seemed generally willing if not eager to meet with me. Students were also excited, but one of the challenges was ensuring that students who had promised to come to a focus group actually showed up. I learned that it was necessary to send reminders, but even reminders provided no guarantee: sometimes improvisation was needed. At my second focus group at AUBG, initially only three of the promised six participants showed up. I told the students present that I preferred to have more participants. They immediately began messaging their acquaintances and asking them to join us. Soon we had six participants and started the focus group. I experienced similar issues with no-

65 shows at AUCA, despite reminders sent to students. In these cases, the new participants were given time to review the informed consent form before signing.

In advance of all interviews and focus groups, I emailed participants the appropriate informed-consent forms (see Appendix B). When participants were invited to fill in for no-shows, the newcomers were given time to review the informed-consent form before signing it.I recorded all interviews and focus groups on a digital recording device.

I asked permission of each participant before recording. Only on one or two occasions did the recording device seem to make interviewees uncomfortable at first, but once we began, they did not seem to mind. In meetings with stakeholders, I often opted not to use the recording device, instead taking notes of the discussions. The reason for this was that several of the stakeholders worked in governmental or nongovernmental agencies and might not have spoken as freely if they were being recorded. Nevertheless, they signed the informed- consent form. In all cases, I have preserved the confidentiality of participants. Although I quote participants extensively in Chapter IV, I avoid using descriptors that would allow a reader to identify the speaker.

As English is an official language at all three institutions, I conducted the interviews in English. Varying levels of comfort with English were apparent with faculty, students, and administrators. In the one-on-one faculty interviews and the student focus groups, I adjusted the pace of my questions with participants who seemed less comfortable in English and used repetition of their answers to ensure that I understood them correctly. In one case, an administrator at SEEU opted to speak through an interpreter, and one administrator at AUCA preferred to respond in Russian (I am fluent in Russian). The more talkative students in the focus groups were often the ones with the

66 most fluent English or the most confidence speaking. Nevertheless, I ensured that each participant had the opportunity to answer, and I solicited responses from those who were less outspoken. I chose the focus-group technique to increase the willingness of students to speak openly, which they might have been reluctant to do in a one-on-one interview

(Creswell, 2007). The group dynamic allowed me to observe student interactions that provided some insights into the culture of the institution.

Nonparticipant Observation

During the site visits, I collected data through nonparticipant observation and the writing of observation memos. I planned specific opportunities for observation, such as class visits, with the assistance of the university liaison and the faculty interviewees. In addition, depending on events at the university, I sought other opportunities to observe student life, extracurricular activities, and symbolic ceremonies. In my research journal notes for each visit, I made general observations about the surrounding environs of the university and recorded them in observation memos. These memos, as well as interview and focus group memos, became a part of the body of data that I coded and analyzed for this study. In addition to memos, I took photos during my site visits, which aided my description of the campus environments.

At AUCA, I had the opportunity to observe two classes. I also took part in a guest lecture presented by visiting U.S. professors. I spent time in the university and cafeteria. I also had the opportunity to attend AUCA’s graduation ceremony and events relating to graduation in June 2013. Of these events, I took part in a pre-graduation that included the U.S. ambassador, AUCA trustees, administrators, and donors. I also took part in a post-graduation event hosted by the president of AUCA for a smaller group of

67 trustees and supporters of the university. In fact, because of my work obligations, I attended three successive AUCA graduation ceremonies from 2010 to 2013. Classroom observations allowed me to get a sense of the used, the level of student engagement, and student interactions with one another and with faculty. At the graduation-related events, I became better acquainted with the chief friends and supporters of the university, an important aspect of understanding global, national, and local influences on the university. The graduation ceremony itself provided insights into how the university portrays itself to the public—in this case, primarily to the parents of graduates, other students, and supporters of the university. By taking part in these activities, I was able to contextualize the data I collected through interviews and focus groups and to grasp nuances that might not otherwise come through reading marketing materials and documents about AUCA.

At SEEU, I also observed classes to gain insights into the classroom dynamic.

Outside the classroom, I spent time in the cafeteria and library, which allowed me to observe student interactions and note the languages being used by students. A faculty member took me to an ethnic Albanian village in a more rural area outside of Tetovo, where his family had lived for generations. While there, I met with the principal of the local elementary school and toured the school. This visit provided insights into the living standards of many of the ethnic Albanians and the condition of schools that many potential SEEU students might come from. The visit also showed the role of the Albanian diaspora in the European Union and the United States, and the importance of remittances in this part of Macedonia. In addition to formal opportunities for observation, I had many informal interactions that deepened my understanding of the environment at SEEU. I

68 spent a considerable amount of time with faculty members, including lunches and dinners. One faculty member, who taught part-time at both SEEU and the State

University of Tetovo (SUT), arranged for me to visit SUT and meet with senior administrators there. I also toured SUT’s school and met with instructors and students.

These visits provided perspective on the relationship between SEEU and SUT, the two universities in the country that offer higher education in the Albanian language.

My visit to AUBG also included numerous opportunities for nonparticipant observation, as I sought to immerse myself in campus life. I observed three classes, two in the business program and one general education literature course. In addition, I took part in a gathering of the Literary Club that was attended by roughly 40 students. The

Literary Club event was followed by a brief reception, which gave me an opportunity to speak informally with students and faculty. I attended a screening of a documentary about

Slovenian philosopher and cultural critic Slavoj Žižek organized by the Philosophy Club and European studies program. The film was attended by more than 60 students and was followed by lively discussion. I wrote observation memos based on these events. In addition, I wrote general observation memos based on the campus architectural layout and the place the campus occupies in the city, student gatherings, and popular spots on campus, including the library and cafeteria. As at SEEU, I had the opportunity to interact informally with several faculty members over meals. These interactions provided additional nuance to my understanding of AUBG’s culture.

Document Analysis

An analysis of documents from each institution provided valuable contextual information for the data I collected through interviews. These documents included

69 numerous reports at each institution relating to accreditation and strategic planning. In addition, I collected marketing materials, alumni publications, academic catalogs, and student publications for review. I also analyzed materials on the university websites, including mission statements, strategic objectives, faculty profiles, student demographics, tuition and fees, recruitment videos, a “virtual tour” at AUBG, and news updates. I visited Facebook pages relating to the university and signed up to receive regular news updates for alumni. I used documents to deepen my analysis of the themes that emerged from interviews and focus groups. Although I reviewed many of the documents in advance of my site visits, the analysis of these documents occurred after the site visits and continued parallel to my coding of the interview and focus-group data.

Handling Data

The methods that I employed in data collection generated a large amount of qualitative material to be analyzed. Seidman (2006) emphasizes how important it is for interviewers to keep track of participants through attentive organization of interview data, recordings, transcripts, and informed-consent forms. The same applies to focus groups.

For this reason, I created spreadsheets for each site visit that included my daily schedule and lists of faculty, staff, administrators whom I interviewed, and focus-group participants. I kept hard copies of informed- consent forms in a folder with me at all times during my visits, and I scanned and saved them in a password-protected folder on my computer. I kept all other relevant site-visit data in one file for each institution. This file included my interview memos, observation memos, and a research journal that I kept as I traveled. Upon completion of each interview or focus group, I uploaded the audio file

70 to my secured laptop. Once interviews and focus groups were transcribed, I added these to the files.

Most of the transcriptions were done by a professional transcription service. For each site, I did one or two interview transcripts myself. I transcribed all but two of the focus-group interviews myself. Using a professional transcription service was a necessity, given the amount of time it would have taken to do all transcriptions myself.

Nevertheless, the quality of the transcriptions was often poor, because the transcribers were unfamiliar with the context of the interviews. I provided glossaries and a research summary to the transcription company, which seemed to improve the work somewhat.

An additional issue for the transcribers was that the majority of my interviewees were non-native speakers of English and some had heavy accents. Occasionally foreign words or phrases were used (some Russian, since my participants knew that I understood the language). These factors led to numerous inaccuracies in the transcriptions. As a result, I spent a significant amount of time listening to my audio files and cleaning up the transcriptions. The focus-group transcripts were particularly difficult for the transcribers, so that by the time I reached the AUCA focus groups, I did the transcription myself.

Once the transcripts were sufficiently clean, I created a master spreadsheet for each site that contained all of the data and focus group text. I copied and pasted chunks of text from the interviews into the spreadsheets. I used these spreadsheets for my coding.

Coding and Data Analysis

For coding of my data, I relied largely on the guidance provided by Saldaña

(2009). I did all of the coding manually. After cleaning the interview and focus-group transcriptions, I created spreadsheets for each institution and entered chunks of text into

71 the first column of the spreadsheet. As I reread and analyzed the raw data, now organized in blocks, I began the first cycle of coding. I used several of the coding techniques common in the first cycle. I employed attribute coding to indicate basic information about the speaker and setting of each interview or focus group that might be relevant to what was being said. Using structural coding, which involves applying a content-based label to a segment of data, I tagged blocks of text that seemed related, for subsequent analysis. I also used descriptive coding, which summarizes in a word or phrase the gist of a segment of text. I drew upon words or phrases from the speakers for in vivo coding. One example of in vivo coding was the phrase “in-betweenness” said by an administrator at AUCA. I also used process coding to reflect action coming through in the data. An example of a process code was “preparing students for international connections.”

Once my first cycle of coding was complete, I revisited the data and my first cycle codes to begin merging codes that were conceptually similar and weeding out codes that seemed marginal. Table 3.3 provides a listing of the second-cycle codes that resulted from narrowing down the first codes that emerged in my process.

Table 3.3 Second-Cycle Coding AUBG AUCA SEEU Faculty: Expat vs. Lack of Corruption (relative) Practical Orientation of Curriculum Local (strategy linked to employability of graduates) Serving Two Masters: Importance of International Lack of Corruption (relative) Reconciling US and Image BG HEd Systems Interaction with the Alternative Model of Importance of International image Local: Academia HEd/Influence on HEd in Kyrgyzstan Interaction with the Accommodating/Resisting Focus on Local: Government National Norms Quality/Standards/Professionalism and Society

72 Regional Context: EU Serving Two Masters: Alternative Model of HEd/Influence Accession Reconciling US and KG HEd on HEd in Macedonia Systems Regional Context: Preparing Students for Significance of Skopje Campus Economics International Connections – “Joining That World” Regional Context: Inbetweenness—US and Accommodating/Resisting National Balkans Central Asian Culture Norms National Context National Influences: Employability Competitive Pressures Education for National Influences: Politics Preparing Students for International Citizenship vs. Job Connections Preparation Students: Evolving Contrast with Other Role of Language Mindset Universities Students: Distinctive Global Influences: Donors National Influences: Competitive Qualities Pressures Values: Tolerance Global Influences: National Influences: Politics Exchanges/Partnerships Values: Diversity Central Asian Contrast with Other Universities Cultural/Historical Influences – Mentality Values: Global Faculty: Expat vs. Local Global Influences Citizenship Values: Capitalism Faculty Autonomy Local Community Values: Liberal Arts Students: Distinctive Qualities Influences on Faculty Competition for Values: Tolerance Balkan Cultural/Historical Students Influences—Mentality Competition for Values: Academic Integrity Public vs. Private Faculty Bulgaria Is a Values: Global Citizenship Different Country Incongruity: AUBG Values: School Spirit vs. BG HED American “Brand” Values: Liberal Arts- Questioning Leadership Competition for Students Eliteness Competition for Faculty Preparation for Brand Promotion as Strategic Global Capitalist Objective/Adaptation Strategy System (AUCA “Brand”) Evolving Institutional Local Influences: Leadership Identity Pathway to West Local Influences: Staff Lack of Corruption Eliteness

73 Entrepreneurialism

I indicated the second-cycle codes in column three of my spreadsheets for each institution. At this stage, patterns began to emerge within the codes. Through focused coding, which seeks the most frequent or significant codes from the first cycle, categories of data became clearer.

Following the second cycle, I transferred the data from my spreadsheet to a word- processing document and organized the raw text by the categories that had emerged through second-cycle coding. This reordering of the data allowed me to analyze the connections between segments of data and to further distill the data. This process of narrowing and synthesizing resulted in several themes for each institution. In preparation for writing, I organized the themes according to my research questions. This step allowed me to conduct cross-case analysis and to see how themes specific to one institution related to those seen in the other cases. For example, the theme “Global Influences” was shared by AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG, although there were also important differences across institutions. The similarities and differences form the core of my writing in

Chapters IV and V.

Parallel to the coding of interviews and focus groups, I read and analyzed documents relating to each institution. I organized excerpts and my notes from documents according to the emergent themes form the interviews. By organizing the document-analysis data in this same way, I was able to find patterns that consistently emerged from the interview data and the document analysis. This process allowed me to further distill the most significant themes to address in my writing and to leave out what was redundant or a weaker phenomenon.

74 In the final phase of my data analysis and writing, I sought to draw a larger picture of the adaptation of these universities through cross-case analysis. As Creswell

(2007) notes, in a multi-case study, the within-case analysis is typically followed by a

“thematic analysis across the cases” as well as an “interpretation of the meaning of the case” (p. 75). This component of my methodology strengthens its validity. George and

Bennett (2005) argue that “the strongest means of drawing inferences from case studies is the use of a combination of within-case analysis and cross-case comparisons within a single study” (p. 18). I used this combination in this study.

Memo Writing

In addition to coding, memo writing is an important method in qualitative data analysis. Memos provide the researcher with a structured space for reflecting on the process of conducting research. Maxwell (2005) advocates the regular writing of memos during the data-analysis process to facilitate analytical thinking about the data and to stimulate insights (p. 96). For each interview I conducted, I wrote a brief process memo that did not focus on the content of the interview but rather served as a record of my on aspects of process: how the interview went, which questions seemed awkward or confusing, what I was thinking about during the interview, how comfortable the interviewee seemed to me, and any nonverbal communication that occurred during the interview that would not be captured in the transcription. In the analysis phase, I referred back to these process memos, which at times influenced my selection of what material merited inclusion in the study. For example, I was able to sense when an interviewee spoke from conviction or was merely saying something that he or she thought I wanted to hear. In addition, I wrote observation memos based on specific

75 events, as well as general memos during my site visit. During my coding of the data, I wrote several analytical memos that allowed me to reflect on process and question the approaches that I was using.

Ethical Considerations

As in much social research, the greatest risk to participants is a breach of confidentiality. Although I believed this risk to be minimal with this study, it nonetheless needed to be managed effectively. This was achieved in several ways. I received support from the university administration and fulfilled all requirements to ensure compliance with their research review processes. All three institutions accepted my institutional review board (IRB) approval from The George Washington University; they did not require me to go through an additional process. By gaining appropriate approvals, I received institutional assurances that no faculty or students will experience any repercussions, such as job loss or expulsion, for choosing to take part or not to take part in my research study.

I also preserved confidentiality through my handling of the data that I collected. I digitally recorded my interviews and focus groups. I labeled the interviews with a numeric code indicating the date and order of the interview but showing no identifying details on the participant. I saved the recordings on my password-protected hard-drive, with back-ups saved to a secure external hard-drive. I kept both my laptop and external hard-drive in my possession throughout my site visits. Upon return to the United States, as I created my coding spreadsheets and analysis, I saved back-up copies of all documents to a Dropbox, a password-protected cloud-based server.

76 A broader ethical concern arises from my former employment with an organization that might be perceived as a potential grant provider to the individuals who took part in my study or to their universities at some point in the future. I was employed at American Councils for International Education from March 2000 to August 2013.

Rather than hide the fact that I worked for this organization, I made it explicit in the project overview to be provided to participants and in the informed-consent form.

Validity

Merriam (1998) suggests several ways to ensure the validity of qualitative research. I employed several of these approaches in this study. Pre-testing was done on the faculty interview protocol with current or former faculty or staff members at overseas institutions that fit my criteria. In addition, expert reviewers provided feedback on the suitability of the protocol questions and their alignment with the research questions.

Triangulation is achieved through the use of multiple sources of data. Interview and focus groups provide self-reported data or participant impressions and perceptions, whereas document analysis provided report data and statistics. Finally, I shared some preliminary data with colleagues in the field at scholarly conferences. Feedback provided at these events directed me to reach out to additional stakeholders and to documents that offered additional contextual information.

Summary

In this chapter, I argued that the case-study method is the most suitable approach to addressing my research questions. I outlined my step-by-step approach to implementing my research plan, providing sufficient details for other researchers to understand my methods. I also discussed ethical considerations relating to the method

77 chosen for this study. The methodology chapter makes my approach to the research transparent.

78 Chapter IV: Results

Over the course of the 2012–13 academic year, I completed site visits to AUCA,

SEEU, and AUBG with roughly two weeks at each institution. The data I collected from these site visits form the core of this chapter. This chapter presents the data collected during the visits from interviews with faculty, administrators, and stakeholders; focus groups with students; university documents and institutional research; and non- participant observation. I present additional data in this chapter from documents and the literature to provide more in-depth contextual detail.

Although the goal of this chapter is to present data, the mere act of coding and organizing data involves analysis (Saldaña, 2009). I have organized the data from the three institutions by the three research sub-questions. Under each sub-question, I have organized the data according to broad themes that consistently emerged from the research. Each theme is further broken down by each institution, which reflects the within-case analysis that informs the presentation of the data in this chapter. This juxtaposition of the data from each institution sets the stage for cross-case comparisons that I explore further in the final chapter.

In an effort to preserve the voices of participants, I provide extensive quotations throughout this chapter. All quotations without a citation are from personal communication that took place in the framework of this study during the period from

August 2012 through June 2013. To preserve the anonymity of the participants, I use only basic descriptors of their roles in the university. In some cases, I provide additional descriptors to clarify meaning, if necessary, but still preserve the anonymity of the participants.

79 Historical Background

A brief outline of the global context for higher education in Eastern Europe and

Eurasia provides an important framework for understanding the broader environment from which these universities emerged. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 ushered in an era of transition across the former

Eastern bloc. This transition process varied from country to country, but the general tendency involved the introduction of some democratic processes and market economic reforms as promoted by the leading western countries. Transition was at times accompanied by violence. The first decade of transition in the Balkans, namely in the former Yugoslavia, saw massacres and civil war “on a scale not seen since 1945” (Judt,

2005, p. 665). Ethnic divisions throughout the Balkans were exploited for political gain.

These conflicts delayed any meaningful transition until some semblance of stability was restored. Bulgaria and Macedonia managed to avoid the wars that devastated their neighbors in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Kosovo. Nevertheless, the conflicts in the region profoundly influenced the political atmosphere in Bulgaria and

Macedonia.

As the once-unified Yugoslavia splintered into independent states, the reverse was taking place in neighboring Western Europe. The fall of the Berlin Wall and subsequent reunification of Germany paved the way for the official establishment of the European

Union. The Maastricht Treaty, formally called the Treaty on European Union, is the founding document of the European Union. European leaders drafted the agreement in the Dutch city of Maastricht in December 1991; it was officially signed on February 7,

1992, and came into effect on November 1, 1993. The Maastricht Treaty created an

80 integrated economic and monetary union and established the European Central Bank and a common currency (Treaty on European Union, 1992). The Maastricht Treaty also provided for the granting of EU citizenship to nationals of member countries and introduced free movement of EU citizens within the Union. Member countries also committed to implement a common foreign and security policy. The conflicts in

Yugoslavia presented the first critical foreign-policy challenge for the nascent union and its newly established institutions. The European Union recognized the need to establish its credibility as an entity with a coordinated and effective foreign policy. Failing to address the conflicts in its own backyard would have undermined the union from the start.

Thus, the European Union was deeply engaged with the transition in Yugoslavia.

Bacevic (2014) observed that the period of transition for Yugoslavia, especially once the wars for independence largely ended, witnessed greater influence by international and transnational actors and networks on policymaking. The goal of EU accession was shared by all of the post-Yugoslav states, which therefore were influenced by the frameworks and standards related to accession. Bacevic (2014) argued, “[T]he political, economic, and social aspects of the accession process determined, to a large extent, the internal political dynamics of the successor states” (p. 125). In addition to EU institutions, other

European organizations, such as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in

Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe, played active roles in policy formation in the former Yugoslavia, with the ultimate aim of integrating this region into the European

Union.

81 Bacevic’s observation refers specifically to the Former Yugoslav Republic of

Macedonia, but is largely true of Bulgaria, as well. Through a succession of governments,

Bulgaria remained committed to introducing market-oriented economic reforms. EU accession was the highest foreign policy priority, regardless of the party in power, and market reforms were a prerequisite to EU membership. Bulgaria also actively sought membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which it achieved in

2004. When Bulgaria attained membership in the European Union in 2007, it entered as the poorest economy in the Union. Its economy was moving in a positive direction, however, averaging more than six percent annual growth from 2004 to 2008.

Unfortunately, the country was hard hit by the global economic downturn in late 2008

(CIA World Factbook, 2015). Public-sector corruption, influential organized-crime networks, and weak rule of law continue to stymie Bulgaria’s potential for economic growth. According to 2014 World Bank data, Bulgaria ranked 76th of 215 countries, with a purchasing power parity gross national income (PPP GNI) of US$15,850 (World Bank,

2015). Economic woes and an electorate fed up with government corruption have led to large demonstrations and growing political uncertainty in Bulgaria since 2013.

Shifting eastward, newly independent countries of the former Soviet Union were experiencing similar pains from transition. The end of the Soviet Union in December

1991 sparked violence in several regions of the former empire. Kyrgyzstan, however, managed to emerge as an independent republic with little bloodshed. Askar Akaev, who led the Kyrgyz Soviet Socialist Republic prior to independence, maintained his hold on power through the transition and remained in office until 2005. This continuity spared the country from violent upheaval in the early years of transition. Nevertheless, although

82 Akaev remained in power for 15 years, his presidency was “precarious” as political elites continually sparred for resources and power (McGlinchey, 2011). In the initial post-

Soviet years, the country had extremely limited economic resources. The passage of a constitution in 1993 that provided for power-sharing between the legislature and executive branch was a significant accomplishment, in contrast with the authoritarian regimes emerging in Central Asia during the transition period. Indeed, the constitution in some ways made Akaev the darling of the democratizers within the international community. Not coincidentally, foreign assistance to the country increased significantly in 1994, leading to a period of relative stability under Akaev through 2001. During this period, Akaev introduced market-based reforms, and foreign governmental and nongovernmental aid agencies operated actively throughout the country. In December

1998, Kyrgyzstan became the first former Soviet republic to be admitted into the World

Trade Organization (CIA World Factbook, 2015). Nevertheless, despite initial democratic and pluralistic gestures, the Akaev administration became increasingly authoritarian and corrupt, particularly following the establishment of a U.S. air base in support of operations in Afghanistan in December 2001. Ultimately, Akaev was overthrown in the

“Tulip Revolution” in spring 2005.

Despite the challenges these countries faced in establishing their viability as independent states, they were recognized and welcomed by the international community.

Thus, the transition period across the former Eastern bloc was also characterized by the active integration of the newly emerging countries into international institutions. The

Yugoslav conflicts brought significant involvement by the United Nations, the OSCE, and later, in Kosovo, of NATO. Financial entities such as the International Monetary

83 Fund, World Bank, and other multilateral development banks played instrumental roles in supporting the newly independent economies through challenging transition years. This support, often in the form of structural adjustment loans, came with conditions reflecting the neoliberal ideology of the banks. Neoliberal policy frameworks typically entailed privatization of formerly state-owned assets, land reform, opening up of markets, and deregulation of public services. In higher education, private provision arose in systems where previously it had not existed. The leap in enrollment in private institutions rose from near zero to up to 30% of national enrollment across the region (Levy, 2007).

AUBG, AUCA, and SEEU were among the new private institutions in the region

(although legally SEEU is considered a “public-private” university, it receives no public money and acts like a private nonprofit university).

In the former Soviet Union, humanitarian aid rushed in to fill the gap formed when Soviet subsidies evaporated. Democracy promotion was a pillar of U.S. and EU involvement in the region, along with economic reforms following the neoliberal template—privatization of state assets, opening up markets for foreign investment, and deregulation of utilities. The Kyrgyz Republic is considered the most democratic of the five former Soviet Central Asian Republics, particularly after the elections in late 2011 that brought in the Almazbek Atambaev administration. The economy remains in poor condition and relies heavily on remittances from migrant workers in Russia, which account for more than 30% of GDP (World Bank, 2015). According to 2014 World Bank data, the Kyrgyz Republic ranked 160th in the world with a PPP GNI of US$3,220 per capita (World Bank, 2015). AUCA emerged in this context, initially as a school within the main state university, Kyrgyz National State University, then subsequently as an

84 autonomous private institution. In 2014, the year of the latest World Bank data, AUCA’s

official yearly tuition rate was higher than the country’s average annual income.

Table 4.1

Timeline of Key Events

Date Event

November 9, 1989 Fall of Berlin Wall

June 24, 1991 AUBG Opens

August 31, 1991 Kyrgyzstan Declares Independence From Soviet Union

September 17, 1991 Macedonia Declares Independence from Yugoslavia

September 1991 Croatian War for Independence Begins

December 25, 1991 Dissolution of Soviet Union

February 7, 1992 Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty) Ratified

April 1992 Bosnian War for Independence Begins

Fall 1993 Kyrgyz-American School (KAS) Founded at Kyrgyz National

State University

December 14, 1995 Dayton Accords Signed Ending Bosnian War

Fall 1997 KAS Established as Independent American University of

Kyrgyzstan (AUK)

March 1998–June 1999 Kosovo Conflict

January 1, 1999 Official Introduction of the Euro in World Financial Markets

(circulation of the currency began in 2002)

March 24, 1999 NATO Intervenes in Kosovo Conflict, Launching Airstrikes

against Serbia. Tens of Thousands of Kosovar Albanians Flee

85 the Conflict to Seek Refuge in Macedonia.

June 19, 1999 Bologna Declaration Signed

June 20, 1999 NATO Officially Ends Campaign in Kosovo

August 13, 2001 Ohrid Framework Agreement Ending Clashes between Ethnic

Albanians and Macedonian Government Signed

November 20, 2001 Official Opening of SEEU

Spring 2002 Board of Trustees Changes American University of Kyrgyzstan

to American University of Central Asia

March 29, 2004 Bulgaria Joins North Atlantic Treaty Organization

May 1, 2004 EU Enlargement Adds Ten New Members, Including Seven

Former Eastern bloc Nations

Spring 2005 Kyrgyz Republic: Akaev Administration Overthrown in “Tulip

Revolution”

December 17, 2005 Macedonia Granted Candidate Status for EU Membership

January 1, 2007 Bulgaria and Romania Gain Membership to European Union

February 17, 2008 Kosovo Declares Independence

Fall 2008 Onset of Global Financial Crisis

April 2010 Kyrgyz Republic: Kurmanbek Bakiev Administration

Overthrown in Violent Coup

June 2011 Violent Ethnic Clashes between Ethnic Kyrgyz and Minority

Uzbek Population

December 1, 2011 Kyrgyz Republic: Almazbek Atambaev Administration Elected

to Office

86

Global, National, and Local Influences

The first research question explored in this study looks at the extent to which the development of these three universities has been affected by global, national and local influences. This section is divided by the types of influence: global, national, and local. In some cases, the line between what is global or national or local overlaps. Indeed, during the course of this study, a sense emerged that an additional category was needed: regional influences. Nevertheless, I have used the “glonacal” organizing principle to show the three points of intersection within the institutions. In Chapter V, I address the emergence of the regional.

Global influences on AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG have taken many forms. Four main areas of global influence emerged from the data in this study: the role of foreign donors, the global market for Western-trained faculty, international academic mobility programs and partnerships, and the global student market. Of course, competition for students can also be viewed as a national or regional influence, as these universities compete with others in their respective countries for the best students. Nevertheless, the student market for these institutions, perhaps more so than their national counterparts, extends well beyond the country’s borders. National influences differed depending on the country contexts of the institutions, but several categories emerged from the data: changing national politics and economics, the national higher-education context, country- specific cultural and historical influences, and foreign-policy objectives such as EU accession. Local influences can be organized into three categories: leadership, human resources, and organizational culture.

87 Global Influences: Foreign Funding

Since their founding, the three universities in this study have received significant financial support from international entities. The reliance on—and influence of—outside support varied by institution and has changed over time. In addition, the influence of donors has not been unidirectional but is rather a dynamic relationship between shifting institutional contexts and evolving priorities of the international community.

American University of Central Asia.

In the early years of the Akaev administration, democratic reforms allowed some latitude for experimentation in higher education. A faculty member and administrator at

Kyrgyz State National University, Camilla Sharshekeeva, established the Kyrgyz-

American School in 1993 to offer an alternative approach to higher education. The

Kyrgyz-American School gained in popularity and was established as the independent

American University in Kyrgyzstan in 1997. (AUCA website, 2015). In 2002, the name was changed to the American University of Central Asia (AUCA). AUCA has historically relied on financial support from several international sources, but the two primary donors have been the U.S. government and George Soros’s Open Society

Institute. The influence of these donors on AUCA was mentioned frequently during interviews with faculty and administrators.

The U.S. government, according to an AUCA administrator, has been “a surprisingly reliable partner.” Its support began early in the development of AUCA, following a visit by Vice President Al Gore to Bishkek. When still only the Kyrgyz-

American School, the founder Camilla Sharshekeeva reached out to the U.S. embassy to include the school on Vice President Gore’s agenda. He took part in a grand opening

88 ceremony and met with a group of students. According to a former administrator, Gore liked the idea of the initiative and “gave half a million dollars” in support of it. The financial support has continued in various forms through USAID and other State

Department grants, as well as through quasi-government funding, such as the U.S.–

Central Asia Education Foundation. The U.S. ambassadors in Bishkek have remained consistent supporters, recognizing the public diplomacy value of AUCA. They have lobbied in favor of support for AUCA with the Kyrgyz government and actively participate in university events, such as the annual graduation ceremony.

To some extent, the association of AUCA with the U.S. government has proved to be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the university suffers when the Kyrgyz public expresses its anti-Americanism. Demonstrations against U.S. foreign policy often focus on the centrally located (until 2015) campus, rather than the U.S. embassy, which is situated on the outskirts of Bishkek. On the other hand, the assumption that the U.S. government stands behind AUCA offers some degree of protection for the university against more severe measures. As one administrator noted, “Because the perception in the society is that we are US–government-funded, nobody wants to fight us openly, because they think that they don’t want an international scandal, so they do things quietly, right?”

A second major international financial supporter of AUCA has been the Open

Society Institute (OSI). OSI became a significant part of AUCA’s governance when the university was in the process of establishing itself as an independent entity in 1997. It has maintained a presence on the university’s board ever since. The backstory of OSI’s involvement, recounted by a former administrator, illustrates the high-level international politics involved in the institution’s establishment. OSI’s founder, George Soros, was

89 actively involved in funding education-related initiatives across the former Eastern bloc.

During a visit to the United States by then–Kyrgyz President Askar Akaev, a meeting was arranged with Soros. President Akaev invited Camilla Sharshekeeva to join him.

Following the 40-minute meeting, Soros offered $2 million in support that would be matched by the U.S. government. These funds were essentially the start-up money needed to transform what was still only a university academic unit into an independent university, the American University of Kyrgyzstan. OSI involvement was pivotal in the early days of the independent university. OSI pushed for the establishment of a governance structure, including a board of trustees with oversight of the president. The president at that time, John Clark, did not have support from OSI and left the university in 2000.

The role of OSI has remained vital. The organization later brokered a partnership between AUCA and Bard College, which coincidentally has strong ties to George Soros

(Foderaro, 2011). Bard’s longtime president, Leon Botstein, serves on the board of the

Open Society Foundations and has been close to Soros for years. According to several participants in the study, OSI has played a more activist role in university governance, compared with the relatively hands-off approach of the U.S. government funding entities.

The relationship with OSI has supporters and detractors. Some with a longer historical memory recount that OSI vigorously involved itself in the governance of the university. This approach reportedly did not sit well with the founder of the university, who, according to one former administrator, “felt like Soros really took over the university from her,” adding that she “thought she was getting more of a benign partner and that really wasn’t the case.” OSI maintains representation on the board of trustees of

90 AUCA through William-Newton Smith, who is also on the OSI board and has been an advisor to OSI for more than 20 years. It continues to fund scholarships at AUCA directly, but much of its financial support for AUCA is now channeled through the Bard

College partnership.

South East European University.

The creation of South East European University (SEEU) would not have been possible without significant influence and initiative shown by the international community (Bacevic, 2014; Czaplinski, 2008). As Macedonia sought to establish itself as an independent country in the volatile environment of the Balkans in the early 1990s, it relied on international institutions for support. The international institutions had a strong interest in promoting stability in Macedonia and in integrating the country into established international economic, political, and security networks.

According to Farrington and Abazi (2009), SEEU was founded as a result of

OSCE initiatives aimed at addressing the lack of higher-education options for Albanian speakers in Macedonia. SEEU started out as an international foundation in Switzerland led by esteemed diplomat Max van der Stoel even before the conflict between the ethnic

Albanian minority in Macedonia and the state flared up. Van der Stoel traveled to the

United States and throughout the European Union to raise funds for the new venture. The initial amount raised to establish the university totaled 35 million euros. Although funds were raised from various sources, about 50% came from the U.S. government through

USAID (Farrington & Abazi, 2009), with the remainder coming from the European

Commission and individual EU governments. The Macedonian government provided the land for the university rent-free for 99 years. Thus, the university emerged from

91 transatlantic diplomacy led by a seasoned statesman and the cooperation of the

Macedonian government. Nevertheless, the European influence was “prominent” in the founding of the institution. Administrative leadership was provided through the appointment of a senior university administrator from the United Kingdom. Much of the fundraising effort was led by van der Stoel, who is credited as the founder of the university. In fact, in colloquial usage, the university is known simply as “Stoel.”

The funding provided at the university’s founding went to bricks and mortar as well as to human resources—the hardware and software, as one faculty member put it.

Much of the funding went toward hiring experienced administrators and faculty. Grants to bring faculty from the United States and the European Union to teach and develop the curriculum ensured that the education offered at SEEU was distinct from what was offered in the Macedonian state university system.

At times, donor influence and expectations were at odds with the university’s autonomy. Striking a balance between donor demands, on the one hand, and the university’s strategy based on market demands and political reality, on the other, proved challenging. Farrington and Abazi (2009) observed, “Sometimes donor representatives, who were constantly changing under normal diplomatic rotation, sought to influence the academic curriculum in various ways” (p. 13). In this instance, according to administrators familiar with the situation, U.S. representatives pressured the university to shift more aggressively to an English-only curriculum—tantamount to an

Americanization of the university. Both SEEU’s leadership and European donors resisted this move. Since most graduates of SEEU sought employment within Macedonia, the

92 necessity for such a strong emphasis on English-language instruction was deemed impractical.

As the university developed, and geopolitical priorities shifted away from the

Balkan region, global donor influence decreased and shifted to a role of scholarship provision and facilitation of international partnerships (Farrington & Abazi, 2009). Only

6.57% of the university budget was generated from donors, according to a 2012 self- evaluation report. Several faculty lamented that the funding provided in the early years had dwindled and they expressed a desire to see more visiting scholars from the United

States and the European Union, and more overseas training opportunities. The influence of the international community in the early years of SEEU shaped the curriculum and culture of the institution, but some participants seemed concerned that the international profile that distanced SEEU from other institutions in the country was fading. The presence of foreign faculty, and the cachet that this brought to SEEU, was not as strong as in the beginning.

American University in Bulgaria.

The American University in Bulgaria (AUBG) was founded in 1991 through a partnership between USAID, OSI, the University of Maine, and the City of Blagoevgrad

(AUBG, 2006). International donors were key actors in the creation of the university, and they remain important today. The relationship with these donors has evolved, however.

AUBG no longer has the luxury of the levels of financial support it enjoyed from USAID and OSI in its earliest years. To some extent, the America for Bulgaria Foundation (ABF) has stepped in to fill this gap, providing significant support through scholarship funds for

Bulgarian citizens as well as money to build a new student center in 2013. Private

93 donations, including a generous and unexpected gift from a Bulgarian donor, offset the decline in funding from USAID and OSI. In addition, a $10-million loan from the U.S.

Overseas Private Investment Corporation in April 2011 provided a credit line for campus expansion plans (OPIC, 2011).

ABF was founded in 2008 using funds from the liquidation of the Bulgarian-

American Enterprise Fund, which was created with U.S. government money in 1991 through the Support for East European Democracy (SEED) Act. In 2009, ABF established the ABF Distinguished Scholars Program with a donation of $1 million, which was to be awarded to Bulgarian citizens enrolling at AUBG. This initial amount was donated again in 2010 to assist in the recruiting of the 2011–15 incoming classes. An additional $6 million was awarded in 2012 (America for Bulgaria, 2014). Thanks to this new source of funding, which began just as the USAID support was ending, AUBG was able to compete for prospective Bulgarian students who might otherwise choose to study in other EU countries. According to an AUBG news report, from 2009 to 2012, a total of

200 Bulgarians—approximately 50% of all Bulgarian freshmen—received ABF scholarships (AUBG News, 2013). The ABF funding support proved to be vital to AUBG remaining attractive to Bulgarian students and preserving its Bulgarian student population.

OSI continues to provide scholarship funds through its Higher Education

Scholarship Program. Nevertheless, since receiving the final tranche of $20 million in support from USAID in 2006, AUBG has come to rely on tuition to ensure its financial viability.

94 The potential for influence by donors correlates to how dependent an institution is on external funding. As AUBG and SEEU have moved to a position where they fund their operations primarily from tuition, the international donors’ influence on aspects of governance and curriculum has decreased. Nevertheless, the imprint left on these institutions by their international donors and founders in the early years of operation remains an integral part of institutional identity. AUCA remains more dependent on its international donors and their influence, particularly that of OSI, which can be seen in the growing partnership with Bard College.

Global Influence: International Partnerships and Exchanges

International partnerships have influenced AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG and remain a vital part of their institutional culture. These partnerships have taken on different forms, affecting various aspects of governance, curriculum, and student life. Foremost among the affects of exchanges and partnerships was the transfer of knowledge to a cadre of faculty and staff, who would play influential roles within the institutions. The international linkages also created opportunities for students to study or work abroad and to envision their futures as intertwined with their peers around the world.

American University of Central Asia.

At AUCA, early partnerships, such as a connection with the University of

Nebraska, Lincoln (UNL)—funded through the U.S. Department of State—were mentioned by some as having an influence on the university’s development. It seems the primary benefit of these partnerships was related to opportunities for faculty mobility.

The chair of the business department for several years, for example, came to AUCA from

UNL. A later partnership with Indiana University (IU), also through U.S. government

95 funding, offered further opportunities for faculty training: a cohort of 15 faculty members completed master’s programs at IU through this partnership. One of those participants now serves in an administrative role at AUCA, while others continue to teach. The majority, however, ultimately left the university for other pursuits. IU also partnered with

AUCA to establish its endowment, which was started with a $15-million grant from

USAID and OSI in 2005. AUCA, nevertheless, was a local institution, first as a school within Kyrgyz National State University, then later as the independent American

University in Kyrgyzstan. This local aspect of the university proved crucial to its early development. Initially through Kyrgyz National State University, and subsequently as an independent institution, AUCA has been accredited by the Kyrgyz Ministry of Education and Science to issue state-sanctioned diplomas.

Beyond institutional partnerships, international exchange opportunities also were cited by many as pivotal in the career development of faculty. The U.S. Department of

State’s Junior Faculty Development Program, a non-degree yearlong or semester program focused on course development and teaching methodology, was mentioned by some faculty as an influential career-development opportunity. Others cited the Edmund

Muskie Fellowship and Fulbright programs, both funded by the State Department, as crucial in their pathway to AUCA. The first president of the university, John Clark, initially came to Kyrgyzstan as a Fulbright scholar, then returned the following year at the behest of the U.S. embassy to serve in a consulting role with what was then still the

Kyrgyz-American School. These academic mobility programs allowed faculty, and in some cases staff, to directly experience academic culture, governance, teaching, and research in a Western-style institution, an experience that has informed their approaches

96 to teaching and administration. Through these programs, they have developed personal networks linking them with peers around the world, as well as with transnational institutions, alumni groups, and professional associations. The prevalence of these programs has also created a culture in which faculty, staff, and students are attuned to numerous opportunities to gain experience abroad.

The most significant institutional partnership for AUCA today was launched in

2009 with Bard College. The question of U.S. accreditation was temporarily resolved through the Bard partnership. Since 2011, AUCA graduates, with the exception of business and business-law majors, receive both a Kyrgyz state diploma and a Bard diploma accredited by the Commission on Higher Education Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools. Prior to the Bard partnership, AUCA had explored the possibility of independent U.S. accreditation. Attaining U.S. accreditation was desirable as an external validation of academic quality. Some also saw U.S. accreditation as a buffer against political volatility in the Kyrgyz Republic and capricious demands made by the Kyrgyz Ministry of Education and Science. In 2007, USAID commissioned a report by a U.S. higher education development expert, Dr. Kenneth Tolo, to determine the preparedness of AUCA to apply for accreditation by the New England Association of

Schools and Colleges (NEASC). Despite the report’s recommendation to proceed with an application, the urgency of pursuing independent accreditation eased with signing of the

Bard partnership (Tolo, 2007).

In addition to accreditation, Bard has a significant influence on teaching and learning at AUCA. Several recent shifts in academics at the university can be attributed to Bard. For example, the first-year experience at AUCA has been developed in close

97 collaboration with Bard faculty members. Bard also offers AUCA faculty opportunities for professional development at its main campus in Annandale, New York. Many at

AUCA view the Bard partnership as a positive influence: “Bard has been a spectacular partner,” said one AUCA administrator, adding, “They’re really, really good.” The administrator elaborated, “On the one hand, they’re good at making sure that we don’t slack off and do whatever the hell . . . On the other hand, they’re good at saying, ‘You can do it your way. You don’t have to do it exactly the way we did it.’” Some expressed suspicion of Bard’s “colonial” motivations, but most participants in the study saw consistency in the mission of AUCA and the aims of the Bard partnership. The impact of this partnership on academics and institutional culture at AUCA was articulated by one senior administrator:

Well, I think obviously the partnership with Bard is probably the biggest thing

that’s happened in the past five years to influence that direction [toward a

Western model]. And so that’s been just a transition of the curriculum, which

used to be a lot more Russian—I mean a lot of English, but still a lot of

Russian. Now it’s all English. That’s been a huge culture shift, as far as when you

talk to people who’ve been here for over ten years, that they’ve seen. And just a

lot more focus on liberal arts and writing and things that are important to Bard. A

lot of people here agree that things that are important to Bard are also important to

us, and although I don’t know that those always coincide with one another, but

that has been the biggest influence on the university, that’s for sure, especially in

terms of academics.

98 It is an unequal partnership—a donor-dependent relationship—given the significant amount of money that Bard brings to the table. Nevertheless, as this administrator emphasizes, the shift that Bard has been instrumental in bringing about represents not a departure from the AUCA mission, but rather a reinforcement of the direction that AUCA was headed. Most importantly, the partnership has provided the resources to achieve this goal.

South East European University.

At SEEU, international partnerships and exchanges similarly contributed to faculty professional development. A partnership with IU in the early years was cited by several study participants as influential on their own development. The IU partnership was supported initially by grants from USAID. Through this partnership, graduate students, faculty, and administrators at SEEU traveled regularly to Indiana for training.

Faculty and staff from IU traveled to Tetovo to assist in curriculum development and to teach some courses (Peck, 2014). Several participants in this study noted the impact of the IU partnership on the curriculum and at SEEU, so clearly the initial active involvement of IU had a lasting influence. SEEU also hosts foreign scholars supported by grants programs. One instructor whom I interviewed received a Fulbright grant from the

U.S. government to teach for a year at SEEU.

Although the partnership became somewhat less active when the USAID funding ended in 2006, the relationship still remains vital for SEEU. The SEEU Foundation—the trustee of donations and the fund-raising vehicle for the university—works in partnership with the Indiana University Foundation to ensure the sustainability of the endowment.

Some of the endowment funds are set aside for SEEU staff and student exchanges with

99 the United States (Farrington & Abazi, 2009). In addition, IU holds a seat on SEEU’s board of trustees.

In an effort to reinvigorate the longstanding partnership, SEEU invited IU

President Michael A. McRobbie in 2011 to mark SEEU’s ten-year anniversary.

McRobbie, who was president at IU in 2001 when the partnership with SEEU began, was awarded an honorary doctorate during his visit to Tetovo (IU Press Room, 2011). A memorandum of understanding was signed during the visit, and some new collaborative projects were started. One notable project with financial support from USAID was the development of a course-management system at SEEU based on IU’s system. SEEU staff adapted the parts of that system that were most needed. IU staff members were actively involved in training SEEU staff as part of this collaboration.

The SEEU International Relations Office has worked actively to provide exchange opportunities for the university, which is a partner in academic mobility networks, including the Basileus program linking EU universities with institutions in the western Balkans, the Erasmus Mundus JoinEU-SEE program, and the S4WB scholarship database to connect students in the western Balkans with grants to study in EU countries.

Erasmus funding for student and faculty mobility is available. Belgium’s King Baudouin

Foundation (KBF) has also provided scholarship funding to SEEU. Through its

Democracy in the Balkans initiative, KBF seeks to improve higher education in the western Balkans in order to prepare the region for integration into the European Union

(King Baudouin Foundation, 2015). SEEU student participation in exchanges has been disappointing, however, according to staff at the university’s International Office.

Research opportunities for faculty and students have also been a focus of the

100 International Relations Office. Since 2003, SEEU has taken part in 26 Tempus projects funded by the European Commission (SEEU Strategic Plan, 2012). Unfortunately, due to

Macedonia’s protracted period of EU accession negotiations, the country has withdrawn from Tempus (SEEU Strategic Plan, 2012).

American University in Bulgaria.

AUBG benefited from institutional partners early on in its development. The

University of Maine (UM) was central in the founding of the institution. The connection with UM was made by USAID’s John Menzies, who was working in the embassy in

Sofia at the time of transition. Menzies reached out to UM President Dale Lick, who was an acquaintance of Menzies. President Lick signed on to the project. The University of

Maine system has been the training ground for several presidents of AUBG and was actively involved in faculty hiring. In addition, staff from UM spent months at AUBG setting up the university’s computer system and library (Young, 1997). Several senior faculty members I spoke with for this study recalled the support that UM offered in building a curriculum and providing teaching workshops. UM also extended its accreditation to AUBG until the university gained full independent accreditation from the

New England Association of Schools and Colleges in March 2001. The prestige and legitimacy of U.S. accreditation was crucial in AUBG’s early years of development.

Exchanges are a significant part of AUBG’s culture. In fact, some of the student participants were attracted to AUBG because of its reputation for having abundant exchange opportunities. As a member of the International Student Exchange Program

(ISEP) network, the university actively encourages its students to study at other institutions within the network, and each semester it hosts exchange students from several

101 countries. Bulgaria’s EU member status also makes AUBG students eligible to take part in the Erasmus program. Several focus-group participants took part in exchanges, with the Erasmus program and ISEP being the most common ones mentioned. Exchange students from the United States and Kyrgyzstan who were studying for a semester at

AUBG also met with me during my site visit. International linkages attract a certain type of student to AUBG, namely students who have traveled abroad or intend to do so.

Several student participants in this study noted that one of their reasons for choosing to come to AUBG was that there would be more exchange opportunities than at other institutions.

Even more popular than academic exchanges among AUBG students, however, was the U.S. Department of State’s Summer Work Travel program. Although precise figures were not available, it is clear that a significant proportion of AUBG students—by some accounts, 75% (Phillips, 2004)—took part in this program at some point in their undergraduate studies. The perception exists among AUBG students that participating in the Work Travel program is a regular part of student life at AUBG. The program, which invites students enrolled from overseas higher-education institutions to spend their summer break working in the United States, is prominently advertised on bulletin boards throughout campus and in student publications. AUBG students join college-age youth from around the world for this program. In 2014, more than 79,000 participants from 120 countries traveled to the United States to work up to four months in jobs at resorts, as lifeguards, cashiers, or other seasonal employment (United States General Accounting

Office, 2015). The program has been cited for offering less than ideal living and working conditions for the students. Nevertheless, AUBG students spoke highly of this

102 opportunity and viewed it as an additional way for them to connect with a network of like-minded, globally mobile peers.

Exchanges and institutional partnerships affect AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG to varying degrees. In some ways, exchanges are an element of soft power used to strengthen connections. The U.S. Department of State exchange programs and funding for institutional partnerships are examples of soft power initiatives. The EU’s Erasmus program also serves a soft-power purpose, promoting Europeanization of higher education across member countries and beyond. Erasmus programs focusing on the western Balkans are an effort to bring these non-EU higher-education systems closer to the EU system. Active exchanges and partnerships also reinforce the global connectedness of these institutions, providing a flow of individuals and expertise that influence and shape AUCA, SEEU, AUBG and their partner institutions. This flow enhances the reputation of AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG and increases their attractiveness for students and faculty members alike. Indeed, the reference points for these institutions are as much global as they are national.

Global Influence: Recruiting and Retaining Faculty

AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG aspire to differentiate themselves from other institutions in their regions by offering a western curriculum. This claim to differentiation is substantiated when those delivering the curriculum have Western credentials. Faculty status has implications for accreditation, reputation, and ranking. The global market for western Ph.D.s, therefore, influences these institutions and their strategies for sustainability.

American University of Central Asia.

103 Not surprisingly, attracting Western-trained Ph.D.s to a small liberal-arts university in remote Kyrgyzstan has presented a challenge. Nevertheless, AUCA makes clear that attracting them remains a strategic priority, as the first goal listed on its website declares:

We will have the best international faculty in Central Asia, teaching primarily in

English, to fulfill the mission and values of the University, and to foster a caring

and exciting academic environment for the development of enlightened and

passionate leaders (AUCA website, 2015).

Administrators at AUCA were realistic about the daunting task of recruiting instructors with a Ph.D. who are able to teach in English. Salaries at AUCA, lamented one administrator, are “ten times less than [faculty members] would get in the West or five times less than they can get working for the United Nations in Bishkek.” In Bishkek, where the presence of international NGOs and aid agencies is significant, AUCA is not competing only against other universities for the most qualified faculty. In fact, many faculty members are lured away by the higher pay of international organizations.

Moreover, AUCA no longer offers the highest salaries for university faculty in Bishkek.

The private, Turkish-funded Manas University has surpassed AUCA in this area.

Additionally, expatriate faculty members are particularly difficult to attract to Bishkek.

Most of those who teach at AUCA have some personal connection with the region, through spouses, for example, or research interests specifically in the region. Otherwise, given the many options available to Western-trained academics willing to work overseas, the Kyrgyz Republic is not typically among the top destinations.

104 AUCA is beginning to see some of its alumni return to Bishkek with Ph.D.s that they earned abroad, although evidence of this is mainly anecdotal. One faculty member noted that there is a sense of loyalty in returning to teach at one’s alma mater. AUCA offers the best environment for Western-trained academics, commented one faculty member, but it is necessary to supplement the AUCA salary by moonlighting at other institutions.

AUCA has come to rely to some extent on exchange programs to attract Western faculty members. The journalism department, for example, benefited from visiting

Western faculty members supported through OSI’s Academic Fellowship Program (AFP)

(Skochilo, Toralieva, Freedman, and Shafer, 2013). AFP fellows provided assistance in the substantive revision of the curriculum in 2005 and much-needed continuity when the department was experiencing high turnover. The initial AFP support ended in 2009 but resumed a year later when Bard College undertook the accreditation of the journalism program. Other AUCA departments have also benefited from visiting scholars through the Fulbright and other programs. The partnership with Bard has also led to visiting faculty taking on instruction and other duties at AUCA.

South East European University.

SEEU’s commitment to providing trilingual education has limited its ability to find foreign professors. In its strategic plan (2012), SEEU cites that recruiting sufficiently qualified staff was difficult in the initial period of operation. Several administrators, however, including the provost, were Western-trained Ph.D.s. In addition, several faculty participants in this study, although originally from Macedonia, had earned their outside of the former Yugoslavia and had experience working in different

105 academic cultures. As the university places greater emphasis on offering master’s programs in English—particularly in disciplines where English is increasingly expected, such as international business, computer science, and international law—recruiting

English-proficient faculty will be a priority (Strategic Plan 2013–16, p. 15). At the undergraduate level, instead, the institution is more focused on recruiting the best faculty in the country. For now, they have been successful, as noted by one administrator:

We can pick the best teachers, we can get them. We can poach them from other

institutions if we have to, which is one of the benefits of having some money.

You can offer more attractive salaries than the government is going to.

SEEU did indeed seem successful in attracting top faculty to teach. Its location in Tetovo was not an obstacle, as it was common for faculty and administrators to make the 42- kilometer commute from Skopje.

American University in Bulgaria.

Having a Western-educated professoriate is essential to AUBG’s efforts to differentiate itself from other institutions in the region. As global demand for Western- credentialed faculty has grown, AUBG has struggled with turnover. This theme was common among faculty, administrators, and students in this study. Several interviewees described the issue of recruiting faculty members as the most significant challenge facing

AUBG. “Faculty turnover is huge, like unbelievable,” said one faculty member. “Year to year we have no idea who’s going to come back and that’s disruptive,” he added. Part of the problem, from the point of view of this expatriate instructor, was that foreign faculty members are assumed to be temporary. They live as if they are in hotels, in furnished apartments with laundry service and all of the dishes and sheets provided. Another

106 faculty member involved in the hiring process described recruitment as “a fundamental challenge.” Candidates know little about Bulgaria and what they do know tends toward negative perceptions. Hiring candidates from abroad who have spouses is especially problematic, as there are limited employment opportunities in Blagoevgrad, and Sofia is a

90-minute commute away. A strategy that most participants acknowledged was to hire freshly minted Ph.D.s at the start of their careers who do not yet have families or, alternatively, to hire professors at retirement age who are looking for opportunities to teach someplace interesting. In both cases, the assumption is clear that the candidates are expected to stay for only a few years before moving back to their native countries or on to a more prestigious postings in the United States or European Union or, in the latter case, to retire fully.

A common refrain from many of the expat faculty was that they had colleagues accepting more lucrative positions in the Gulf states. This subject was a centerpiece of discussion at an informal dinner attended by a dozen expatriate faculty members. It seemed that everyone at the table had a colleague who had recently accepted a position in

Dubai or Abu Dhabi or Bahrain, and the salaries they were offered were astronomical compared with what AUBG was able to offer. Clearly, these external market forces on faculty turnover were significant.

In some cases, internal university practices and policies also contributed to turnover. Several faculty members raised the lack of a tenure system as a reason some colleagues had left. As one faculty member summarized this issue, “So you have to be re- evaluated first of all, for two or three year contracts and then to a five-year contract, and the result of that—the collective result of that—-is very high faculty turnover, which then

107 affects the quality of education and everything else.” The problem of turnover has not been limited to faculty. One staff member noted that she has worked for eight different bosses since coming to AUBG, including six different provosts and five changes of president from 2001 to 2012.

Some interviewees noted a split between expatriate and local faculty members.

One local faculty member described the two as “divided communities.” This division is exacerbated by the fact that most of the Bulgarian faculty members reside in Sofia and drive to Blagoevgrad for work, whereas most of the expatriate faculty members live in

Blagoevgrad. In general, there seemed to be some tension between local and expatriate faculty. The assumption that expatriate faculty are only temporary contributes to this tension. One staff member also noted that there was a perception among some that international faculty did not fully respect the local faculty.

The location of Blagoevgrad presents challenges in retaining expatriate faculty.

This site for the university was chosen largely through serendipity. The city government in 1991 recognized the economic benefits of being home to an American university. The university founders believed that the distance from Sofia would give them a degree of independence in creating a different kind of university. Blagoevgrad has become essentially a university town, removed from the intellectual center of Sofia. Nearly one- third of Blagoevard’s population of about 70,000 is made up of students from AUBG and the public Southwest University. It is difficult to attract foreign faculty to remain for the long term in this sleepy, remote, albeit picturesque Balkan town.

The university responds to these hiring challenges in different ways. One trend appeared to be hiring a greater number of Bulgarians who earned their credentials in the

108 United States or European Union. These faculty have roots in Bulgaria, are bilingual (at a minimum) in Bulgarian and English, and seem likely to make a longterm commitment to remaining in Bulgaria. They also have experience in a Western academic culture. Several interviewees enthusiastically expressed their commitment to bringing that academic culture to Bulgaria. One faculty member with a Ph.D. from a U.S. institution stated flatly that if AUBG did not exist, she would not be working in Bulgarian academia today—the academic culture of AUBG was central in her choice to return to her native country.

Another tendency is to recruit from multiple geographies. As one faculty member observed,

We have many more [faculty members] from Western Europe now. We have had

a few from India, the Arab world, Korea, but there’s a much larger Western

European contingent here now. And also there’s not really a clear division

between expats and the locals so much, because some of our Bulgarian faculty

have their degrees from places like Virginia Tech, or I know a Bulgarian

colleague in my department who I think did his Ph.D. in the States, I know he

taught for a long time in the states, and then most of our Western European

faculty have some kind of American connection—that they taught at other

American institutions or that they did part of their education in an American

university.

Several other faculty interviewees, including some directly involved in departmental hiring strategies, supported this perspective on faculty recruitment. On the one hand, reliance on expatriate faculty members can be very costly from a budgetary standpoint

(Newton-Smith, 2007). On the other hand, student participants made it clear how

109 important it was to them and to AUBG’s reputation to have a significant presence of expatriate faculty.

National Influences

Regardless of location, or whether they are public or private, all universities are affected by shifts in the national socioeconomic and political environment. The 25-year period from the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 to the time this study was conducted was a period of political and economic uncertainty. At each of the three institutions, participants cited numerous ways in which the national context influenced the development of the university. Demographic declines, shrinking resources for education, systematic corruption, and weak judicial institutions, among other factors, created a challenging climate for emerging universities. National context encompasses such macro factors as party politics, the political culture, foreign policy, and economics, as well as more specific factors relating to higher-education and policies.

American University of Central Asia.

At AUCA, all of the participants seemed acutely aware of the role in which national politics was influencing the university. The political climate in the Kyrgyz

Republic has been a constant factor in the life of the university. The Kyrgyz Republic declared independence in 1992 following the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The

Soviet legacy remained in many aspects of life in the country, including in higher education, but the subsidies from Moscow dropped off precipitously in the decade following independence. Although the Akaev administration introduced market reforms and the trappings of democracy, at its core, the prevailing political culture in the country was that of patronage. That is, power was based on the capacity to control political

110 appointments, access to privileges, and the flow of money in the country (McGlinchey,

2011). The flow of foreign aid into the Kyrgyz Republic increased significantly in 1994, making the country the largest recipient of foreign aid in the region. Although the foreign aid did not go directly to Akaev, he was able to direct its flow to his political appointees, who were then able to use it to their advantage. As long as the aid continued and was distributed in a way that satisfied the elites, Akaev was able to hold on to the presidency.

Akaev’s power, however, became dependent on the flow of foreign aid, which created an incentive for him to maintain good terms with Western donors.

Akaev’s regime became increasingly authoritarian and corrupt, however, and corruption permeated political and social institutions. A public statement made by a former prime minister after being ousted from office makes all too clear the extent of corruption in Kyrgyz society: “[T]oday, only fools and loafers don’t take bribes” (cited in

McGlinchey, 2011, p. 85). This attitude among officials created an atmosphere of distrust in institutions among the citizenry. This distrust extended to public perceptions of higher education as corrupt and politicized. When the 2005 Tulip Revolution brought

Kurmanbek Bakiev to power, he soon replicated his predecessor’s corrupt practices.

A revolution led by a coalition of opposition parties in April 2010 ended the

Bakiev reign. After an interim government headed by respected diplomat Roza

Otumbaeva, relatively democratic elections brought in the Almazbek Atambaev administration and a return to promises of liberalization. Unfortunately, in June 2010, the interim government proved ill-prepared to prevent a wave of violent pogroms targeting the minority Uzbek population. Tension between northern and southern Kyrgyzstan, with the ethnic Uzbek population primarily in the south, remains a challenge to the country’s

111 leadership. Without question, the succession of violent revolutions and ethnic unrest in the country in the past decade has tarnished its reputation as the most democratic of the post-Soviet Central Asian republics. (The bar is of course set rather low in this comparison group.)

The Kyrgyz Republic, categorized as a lower-middle-income country (World

Bank, 2015), has few of its own resources and thus has sought assistance or patronage from the major powers involved in the region. The Russian Federation has continued, to some extent, the Soviet legacy and much of the Kyrgyz population relies on Russian state media for its news. The United States has been an active partner, motivated initially by a democratization policy that was later eclipsed by military priorities. Turkey has linguistic and cultural ties to the Kyrgyz Republic and has built significant business and cultural connections in the past two decades. China has been a major investor, and Kazakhstan has emerged as the regional leader in Central Asia.

The economic realities of the Kyrgyz Republic have presented the most significant challenge to AUCA. Gross national income per capita in 2014 was $1,250

(World Bank, 2015). Until significant improvement occurs, the goal of greater independence from donors will remain out of reach. Too few Kyrgyz families can afford to pay a tuition rate that comes close to the actual cost of teaching at AUCA. The political unrest in 2010 and the global financial crisis exacerbated the already poor economic conditions, increasing the absolute poverty rate from 33.7% in 2010 to 36.8% in 2011

(World Bank, 2015). As one administrator noted, “[T]he economy of this country isn’t strong enough to support the university like we want to run it.” In response, AUCA has sought to attract more students from outside of Kyrgyzstan, conducting recruitment trips

112 to Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Bangladesh, and India, among other countries. The reputation of the country for instability and poverty, however, limits the success of these recruitment efforts. The reputation of the country led another administrator to a pessimistic view on recruitment beyond Kyrgyzstan: “As long as they have a revolution every five years and go back to square one,” he argued, “as long as they can’t put an economy together—then we’ll limp along.” He summed up his frustration, saying, “In the end, a university . . . I don’t think I entirely appreciated the extent to which a university depends on its location.” The political and economic realities of Kyrgyzstan have limited AUCA’s ability to develop as an institution. This reality prompted one faculty participant to express skepticism about AUCA’s future simply because she believed the Kyrgyz

Republic was not viable as an independent state.

In addition to the broader political and economic context, AUCA faced specific obstacles relating to laws governing higher-education institutions in the Kyrgyz Republic.

AUCA does not fit the mold of what the ministry of education expects to see from a university in the Kyrgyz Republic. This incongruence has resulted in numerous disagreements that eventually have been resolved sufficiently to allow the university to continue operating. The sense that AUCA is vulnerable to political whims carried out by the ministry of education prompted some participants in this study to call the ministry the greatest external threat to AUCA’s sustainability. Indeed, higher-education policy in the country has lacked coherence and consistency (DeYoung, 2013). Although the frustrations at AUCA are shared at other institutions, several administrators and faculty expressed frustration with the “special” attention AUCA receives from the ministry.

AUCA issues Kyrgyz state diplomas to its graduates and therefore must remain in

113 compliance with ministry requirements. These requirements have struck some as archaic and based on the Soviet system of state planning. AUCA President Andrew Wachtel, in an interview with a leading Bishkek newspaper, complained about a ministry requirement for a certain number of square meters per student (Benlian, A., 2013). Wachtel questioned the correlation between educational quality and square footage for students, pointing out that despite limited space, AUCA students are nevertheless the most highly sought-after in the Kyrgyz labor market. Despite the frustration of interactions with the ministry—“It’s like talking to a wall,” said one administrator—AUCA has managed to navigate the ministry’s demands and maintain its license to grant Kyrgyz diplomas.

Nevertheless, balancing these demands both with the university’s mission and with expectations from its partners presents a continual challenge to AUCA.

The journalism program illustrates this balancing act. The department has sought to include professional-skills courses in its curriculum that appeal to students and parents concerned with post-graduation employability, but the liberal-arts curriculum at the core of the Bard-AUCA partnership left little room for these courses. Nevertheless, the department struck a balance that allowed it to accommodate the ministry’s demands,

AUCA’s requirements, and Bard’s expectations (Skochilo, Toralieva, Freedman, and

Shafer, 2013). This ability to accommodate authorities while adhering to the university’s mission has been a key factor in AUCA’s adaptation process.

An issue raised by several participants in this study was the deterioration of the elementary- and secondary-school system in the Kyrgyz Republic. Since most AUCA students are Kyrgyz citizens, the quality of schools has a direct impact on whether or not the university can attract students prepared for the AUCA curriculum. Observers have

114 described the state of elementary and in the country as

“catastrophic” (Rahmetov, 2009). To address this problem, AUCA, with funding from the Mina Corporation, launched the New Generation Academy program in 2013. This program offered what is essentially a bridge program for high school graduates to “fill in the gaps in the public school system” (AUCA website, 2015). Instruction focuses on

English, college-level mathematics, the Kyrgyz and Russian languages, academic skills, and critical thinking. AUCA seeks to enroll the top performers in this program, offering financial aid to allow less affluent students from outside of the capital to matriculate. This innovative project contributes to AUCA’s recruitment efforts and at the same time counters the perception that the university caters only to the country’s elite students.

South East European University.

SEEU emerged as a diplomatic response to the political tension between the

Albanian minority and Slavic majority in Macedonia. Macedonia’s challenges went beyond ethnic tensions. If other countries that emerged from the ruins of Yugoslavia, such as Croatia and Slovenia, had economies comparable to less prosperous countries in the European community, Macedonia’s level of development was more akin to less advanced countries in Asia or America (Judt, 2005). The lingering ethnic tensions in Macedonia, along with political uncertainty and economic woes, affected the university in many ways. SEEU, as the sole “public-private” (private nonprofit) university in the country, has struggled to fit in to the academic culture of the country and has been influenced by changing national policies and expectations for higher education.

The international community was focused on addressing the problem of tensions between the Albanian minority and Macedonian majority as early as 1995 and sought to

115 ease these tensions by opening access for the Albanian community to higher education and thereby to greater involvement in Macedonian governance (Bacevic, 2014). The

OSCE proposed the creation of a university with a focus on teacher training and public administration as early as 1995. One element of that proposal—that the institution should be trilingual, offering instruction in Albanian, Macedonian, and English—later became a core feature of SEEU. The early vision was for the university to be a training ground for future teachers in the Albanian community. The lessons from the ethnic violence in neighboring Croatia and Bosnia, and later Kosovo, convinced the international community of the need to prevent the same outcomes in Macedonia. Higher education, namely, SEEU, was thus an effort at conflict prevention. Its establishment became more urgent with the war in Kosovo and spillover of refugees into Macedonia. Conflict ultimately did break out briefly in Macedonia in 2001; it ended with the signing of the

Ohrid Framework Agreement (OFA), through which it became possible to offer higher education in the Albanian language in Macedonia, opening the way for the establishment of SEEU in 2001. Thus, the very existence of the university is deeply intertwined with the national political context of Macedonia.

SEEU was not, however, the first university to offer higher education in Albanian:

The University of Tetovo was. Formed by a group of local politicians in 1994 to draw attention to the demand for higher education in Albanian, the University of Tetovo (UT) was considered by the Macedonian government to be illegal because of its language of instruction. According to the Macedonian constitution, all universities’ primary language of instruction must be Macedonian (Bacevic 2014). Despite the opening of SEEU in

2001, the University of Tetovo continued its operations just down the road as an

116 unsanctioned institution, but SEEU, as an officially recognized university teaching in

Albanian, was now attracting many of UT’s potential enrollees.

The political landscape shifted in 2002 with the emergence of a second Albanian political party, the Democratic Union for Integration (DUI). The Democratic Party of

Albanians (DPA), until 2002 the main Albanian opposition party, had been a central player in the establishment of SEEU. The underground University of Tetovo, in contrast, was allied with DUI, which joined Macedonia’s governing coalition in 2002. The power- sharing arrangement within the winning coalition allowed DUI to appoint one of its leaders to the post of minister of education. Amendments to the Law on Higher

Education adopted in 2003 made it possible to establish a state institution that taught in

Albanian. When the law passed, the underground University of Tetovo became the now legal—and publicly funded—State University of Tetovo (SUT). The two universities in

Tetovo, just a few blocks from each other, developed a form of parallelism, or coexistence. SEEU was regarded as offering higher academic quality, whereas SUT was more affordable, but of poorer quality.

This shift in the law provides one example of how, although its international supporters afford SEEU some degree of protection, the university is not immune from the politics of higher education in Macedonia. As Czaplinski (2008) noted, the Macedonian political system “revolves around ethnicity” (p. 45). All of the main political parties—and to a large extent, media, civil society, the economy, and education—are organized along ethnic lines (Czaplinski, 2008). Tetovo is the center of the Albanian community in

Macedonia, and the two main ethnic-Albanian parties, DUI and DPA, contend each election cycle for the mayoralty, one of the highest-profile political positions that can be

117 attained by ethnic Albanian politicians. For this reason, as one administrator commented,

“[P]arty politics are never far away and that is a very Balkan thing, and it’s something that regrettably does impinge upon us.” For local professors and administrators, pressure from political parties, particularly the Albanian parties most powerful in Tetovo, is not uncommon. At the institutional level, politics can enter into hiring decisions as well as academic decisions, such as the granting of a Ph.D., according to several participants in the study. This interference is not the norm and it happens to a much lesser degree than at state institutions, according to participants, but the political pressures common to

Macedonia and the Balkans nevertheless have an influence at SEEU. One factor is that

SEEU receives no state funding, which on the one hand grants greater independence to

SEEU, but on the other, presents continual fiscal challenges. One administrator articulated this challenge:

The government has done relatively little. We never received a penny from the

state and I don’t think we will. And I don’t think we should, because as soon as

we do that we’re even more beholden to the political parties that I’ve just been

talking about. So I think our private-funding status helps.

SEEU relies on international donors to make up for the lack of state support. This funding allows the university to limit its susceptibility to local political influence.

Macedonia’s aspirations to join the European Union have reinforced SEEU’s goal of connecting its students to Western academic culture. Although the United States was a key supporter from the start, from its founding, SEEU has been more oriented toward the

European Union. In fact, the country’s top foreign-policy objectives are full membership in the European Union and NATO (Czaplinski, 2008). “The idea of European

118 integration,” noted Czaplinski (2008), “is one of the few cohesive factors in a divided

Macedonia.” Integration with European higher education requires compliance with the

Bologna declaration. In some ways, the timing of the opening of SEEU and the signing of the Bologna declaration was fortuitous. Although SEEU initially established a U.S.–style four-year bachelor’s degree, it gradually shifted to the three-plus-two bachelor’s/master’s structure consistent with Bologna and has adapted its curriculum to the European Credit

Transfer System (European University Association, 2009). This Europeanization has brought SEEU in line with the mainstream of European higher education. Incorporation into the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) would benefit the university in many ways, not least in its ability to recruit international faculty (SEEU Strategic Plan, 2012).

As long as the country’s negotiations for accession to the European Union remain hung up on Greek opposition to the naming of Macedonia, full integration into the EHEA will likely remain out of reach. Nevertheless, SEEU was aligned with Bologna from early on and never had to go through a difficult period of reform from a previous system, as its state counterparts had to do. For this reason, SEEU is well ahead of the Macedonian state institutions that have been moving at various speeds toward Bologna.

Historically, Macedonia was the “poorest of the Yugoslav republics” (Czaplinski,

2008, p. 50). Its economy was also the most dependent on the other republics. The 1999

Kosovo crisis, which brought an influx of 320,000 refugees into Macedonia, further strained an already fragile economy (Czaplinski, 2008). Macedonia’s economic woes have had a direct impact on SEEU. As a de facto private university, SEEU’s budget depends primarily on tuition. Given the economic situation in the country, its tuition is affordable only to a small segment of the population, whereas state higher education is

119 cheap. According to the World Bank (2015), Macedonia is an upper-middle-income country with a per capita gross national income in 2014 of $5,150. In Macedonia, the high rate of unemployment, which officially hovered around 28% in 2014 (Republic of

Macedonia State Statistical Office, 2015), and the brain drain of youth seeking better prospects in the European Union threaten SEEU’s ability to sustain itself through tuition alone. Parents and students are increasingly focused on employability and are looking for a direct return on the investment they make in tuition fees. This trend concerns the faculty and administration at SEEU and enters into any discussion of strategic planning. The situation is not yet dire, but it is certainly worsening. One administrator articulated this concern:

Over the past few years we have ridden out some of the worst economic times

that this country, and, indeed, this part of the world have seen in a long time. We

are not in any danger of going broke. We’ve got a number of really good staff

members who are building up solid programs.

SEEU’s primary strategy to address these concerns is to emphasize the quality of its curriculum and the employability of its graduates.

Macedonia’s Law on Higher Education has posed many difficulties for SEEU.

The law has changed frequently, making planning especially challenging. An early shift in the law that directly affected SEEU was the legalization of public higher education in the Albanian language. In 2004, the Macedonian legislature approved the official establishment of the State University of Tetovo, the first publicly financed university with instruction in Albanian. This about-face in higher education law posed a direct challenge to SEEU, creating a much cheaper competitor located a stone’s throw away.

120 Indeed, according to a senior administrator, SEEU’s main competitor today is still the

State University of Tetovo.

The Law on Higher Education also created headaches for SEEU in its tendency to over-regulate (SEEU Strategic Plan, 2012). Specifically, its requirement for ex ante accreditation is cited as especially onerous for a university seeking to be responsive to demands for higher education (SEEU Strategic Plan, 2012). Moreover, the law places emphasis on students earning doctorates, which makes little sense for students in business or management who intend to pursue careers in the private sector, not in academia

(SEEU Strategic Plan, 2012). One senior administrator shared his perspective on the challenges of adhering to the accreditation requirements set forth in the law:

I have [been involved in the Macedonian accreditation process], much to my

dismay. It is a long, complex process that is only done in the Macedonian

language. So even if you are putting together paperwork for, say, the Albanian

Language Program—people who will be teachers of Albanian grammar—we still

have to submit that paperwork in Macedonian. And my general experience is that

the accreditation board doesn’t look so much for quality as for perfectly filled out

paperwork.

Despite the bureaucratic challenges, SEEU has managed to maintain its fully accredited status with the state authorities. Since most of its graduates seek employment within

Macedonia, it is vital for SEEU’s enrollment to have official recognition by the state.

Unlike AUBG and AUCA, SEEU has not sought U.S. accreditation.

The most recent shift in higher-education policy that seemed to concern SEEU faculty and administrators the most was what they called “massification.” Massification

121 refers to the proliferation of branches of established Macedonian state universities throughout smaller towns of Macedonia. These branches of well-known state institutions offered state diplomas close to home for many youth, providing convenience and affordability that was attractive to many students. “You have universities in the city, you have universities in small towns,” complained one faculty member about massification.

Although the quality of the education at these branches, which were often little more than a handful of rooms in an office building, was questionable, many students were choosing this cheaper option. One administrator explained their motivation: “It’s shorter, easier, and you don’t have to work that hard.” He added, “Being a student is not always the same as being a mature person and really wanting to learn and study your professional field . . .

Sometimes it’s just about getting a degree.” A second administrator described this mushrooming of state universities as a serious danger to SEEU:

The government, that is our biggest threat, I’ll be honest with you: education

policy. For example, one of the things they do to mask unemployment is they set

up sort of mini-universities in Debar and Kapija which, imagine you’re in a room

in somebody’s house and they go, “This is the University of Kapija.” And it’s all

nonsense but it’s designed to shield unemployment, particularly youth

unemployment.

The reputation of SEEU for academic rigor was enough to scare away students more concerned with obtaining a diploma than with learning. Recent undergraduate enrollment trends at SEEU, presented in Table 4.2, reflect the impact that at least partly can be attributed to massification.

Table 4.2

122 SEEU Undergraduate Intake Trend

Year Enrollment

2009 1,309

2010 1,036

2011 830

2012 784

This 40% drop in incoming undergraduates in four years was similar to the intake trend at the graduate level (SEEU Strategic Plan 2013–16, 2012). It is not surprising that many of the participants in this study expressed concern about the sustainability of SEEU’s enrollment. One faculty member summed up this problem as follows:

So the branches have made a very big problem for our university, because if one

student is 200 kilometers from Tetovo, then it’s a very good opportunity for him

to stay in his city and to pay a very small amount of money for a good education.

And taking into consideration that maybe they are thinking, I’ll pay less, I’ll get

less, but still I’m closer to my university. So they are not taking the road to come

here to spend more to get more. So that’s [a] very big problem, that’s an issue

with [the] university and the policies of the government.

The mushrooming of state university branches is a serious problem. SEEU, which receives no state funding, relies on tuition and international support. SEEU cannot compete on price with heavily subsidized state institutions. Where it must compete, then, is on academic quality and its international cachet.

American University in Bulgaria.

123 Bulgaria managed to avoid the violent conflict that afflicted the Balkans during the 1990s (Judt, 2005). At the time of this study, AUBG was a more mature institution than SEEU or AUCA, having operated continually for more than two decades. The university leaned heavily on international support to survive the hardest times of the transition period in the 1990s. It weathered several changes in political leadership. The economy, however, was a crucial factor for AUBG as it sought to wean itself from aid subsidies and to become more financially independent. Economic realities in Bulgaria particularly affected the university’s recruitment of Bulgarian students and presented a challenge to a university that sought to attract the best and brightest Bulgarian students.

In interviews with participants, the themes that emerged were the plague of corruption— particularly in higher education—and, most significantly, the impact of accession to the

European Union in 2007, as reported by participants.

It is difficult to overestimate the impact that Bulgaria’s 2007 accession to the

European Union had on AUBG. As one admissions official reported, “In Bulgaria, there were years when we had 200 Bulgarians enrolling, and after the accession to the

European Union we saw only groups of less than 100 in one year . . . [S]o it was a big blow . . .” Neighboring Romania’s accession the same year was no less significant.

Bulgarian and Romanian students historically accounted for the majority of AUBG students. When accession opened to them the opportunity to study anywhere in the

European Union at resident rates, Romanian students stopped enrolling at AUBG, and

Bulgarian enrollment dipped significantly. The United Kingdom became a favored destination for the top students from these countries. According to institutional data, overall enrollment dropped from 1,100 in fall 2006 to a low point of 1,022 in fall 2012.

124 The loss of the Romanian students detracted from the academic environment at AUBG.

Many of the faculty and staff noted this as a significant challenge to the institution, not only for enrollment numbers but also for institutional culture. Compounding this problem, the loss of the Romanian students came at a time when the demographic situation in Bulgaria was at an historic low. Declining numbers of high school graduates were putting pressure on university enrollments throughout Bulgaria. Bulgaria’s birth rate is likely to remain a problem for enrollments well into the future. The country had an estimated 2015 birth rate of 8.52/1000, placing it at 210 out of a total 224 countries ranked (Central Intelligence Agency, 2015). AUBG’s focus on recruiting substantial numbers of international students can, if successful, offset this decline in prospective

Bulgarian students. For the AUBG administration, maintaining a sizable Bulgarian enrollment was of great concern, so overcompensating and enrolling too many non-

Bulgarian students was viewed as a risk to the institution’s identity.

The convergence of EU accession and demographic decline was a blow to

AUBG’s Bulgarian enrollment. University education in the European Union became affordable to many Bulgarian students, and many of the top students were opting to study elsewhere. If before AUBG enjoyed a sui generis status in Bulgaria, if not the Balkans, now it faced competition from across the European Union and beyond. “Since the EU opened its borders [and] accepted Bulgaria into the union,” said one student participant,

“every student could easily apply for any other foreign university, including the UK’s top ten, the U.S. top ten . . . [O]ur university kind of lost its fame.” Being the best in Bulgaria suddenly meant little in a broader competitive context. “Studying in the UK means one thing, but if you have a degree from a Bulgarian university, it’s completely different,”

125 said another student. It will require time for perceptions of a degree from Bulgaria to change.

In some ways, AUBG was now competing not only against other institutions, but also against perceptions of Bulgaria as the poor relation to the wealthier EU member countries. Several faculty lamented that students were choosing what, in their view, were lower-quality institutions simply because they were not in Bulgaria. One faculty member asked, “How can kids go there and pay so much money instead of coming to AUBG?”

He added, “Well, the point is that many Bulgarian students believe that being abroad, even if you are not in a very good university, is better than being in Bulgaria.” Another faculty member echoed this sentiment, concluding: “We don’t compete so much against the British or Dutch institutions in our recruitment . . . We have to compete against the

Bulgarian idea that the West is necessarily better.” Although AUBG is a Western-style institution, its location in Bulgaria lessens its appeal to Bulgarian prospects.

A similar effect can be seen with students from other countries. One student from

Russia, for example, noted the more appealing options available to those who have the funds to pay tuition at AUBG. As the Soviet-era saying goes, she said, “A chicken is not a bird, and Bulgaria is not abroad.” The mindset that Eastern-bloc countries, regardless of

EU membership, are not really culturally different from Russia (or other Eastern-bloc countries), and certainly do not have better universities, persists in many of the countries where AUBG has recruited.

AUBG holds both U.S. accreditation through the New England Association of

Schools and Colleges (NEASC) and Bulgarian accreditation through the country’s ministry of education and science. Because Bulgaria is a member of the European Union,

126 an AUBG diploma carries the imprimatur of both the United States and the European

Union, helping somewhat to offset prospective students’ concerns about the prestige of studying in Bulgaria, yet maintaining its status as both a U.S. and a Bulgarian institution brings many challenges to AUBG. As one faculty member aptly pointed out, “Here, particularly, we serve two masters because we have to be accredited by the States and be accredited by Bulgaria; they want very different things.” These challenges were mentioned frequently in the data and are directly relevant to the university’s efforts to adapt to the Bulgarian higher-education context.

The process of accreditation itself is a crucial point of interaction between AUBG and the Bulgarian system of higher education. In the Bulgarian accreditation process, accreditation teams consist of ministry officials as well as faculty and administrators from other Bulgarian institutions. The criteria used in accreditation are not well suited to an institution like AUBG, as many faculty and administrators pointed out. Bulgarian requirements were challenging, rigid, and not well matched with AUBG, according to a former administrator. They were often quantitative and bureaucratic; for example, they included strict requirements for faculty/student ratio and floorage per student. Bulgaria’s accession to the European Union in 2007 brought EU requirements to bear in the process, and the increased workload on AUBG staff created by these requirements was significant, according to an administrator involved in this process.

AUBG must continually find compromises to balance the Bulgarian and U.S. accreditation requirements. As one administrator noted, “So many times, we just have to devise mechanisms to address both our mission of a liberal-arts education and the requirements for Bulgarian accreditation.” The result, according to one administrator, is

127 an “odd animal” that is both a Bulgarian and U.S. university. For example, in assessment, one staff member is tasked with organizing a committee to establish institutional goals that are aligned with the liberal-arts mission. The staff member has identified the essential learning outcomes of the American Association of Colleges and Universities as a model for what AUBG should adopt. Adapting these goals in the Bulgarian context, however, requires a deft reconciliation with Bulgarian accreditation standards. This same staff member has played an active role in the Bulgarian accreditation process, so she understands the challenge of meeting the formal requirements for universities to operate in Bulgaria. In her apt summation of what she sees as her primary role, her job is trying

“to preserve the nature of AUBG” while still complying with the law.

Despite these complications, the contentiousness of the Bulgarian accreditation process should not be overstated. As one former administrator said, apart from the workload, meeting the standards was “not that difficult.” The accreditation teams, particularly the ministry officials, have approached their work with a spirit of cooperation. As one faculty member familiar with the process said, “They have been willing to allow us a little bit more latitude . . . I don’t think we have needed to make any significant changes in the way we function just to meet Bulgarian accreditation or the letter of the Bulgarian law.” Another faculty member indicated that, for the most part, the accrediting teams “have been very supportive and have shown some understanding that we’re different.” For AUBG’s part, they try to demonstrate that they are in compliance, although they acknowledge that they “can’t completely fit” with the Bulgarian system.

Accreditation in the work cycle of the university is a crucial formal point of interaction

128 with the Bulgarian higher education structure. For AUBG, its efforts to comply have for the most part met with officials’ openness to different education approaches.

The labor code is perhaps less forgiving than accreditation, although the two are related. A complication raised by several faculty and administrators was the issue of habilitation. Habilitation is the process whereby a junior professor advances to a higher professorship by meeting discipline-specific research and publication requirements.

Bulgaria’s requirements for faculty contracts, as well as its long-established academic rankings, appear to be simply irreconcilable with the customary U.S. practices for hiring, tenure, and promotion. As one faculty member noted, “The one thing . . . where we may need indeed to change how we function is this whole issue of habilitation.” Another faculty member similarly noted that the rankings of assistant, associate, and full professor in U.S. academia are completely at odds with Bulgarian academic norms. One staff member involved in compliance with Bulgarian requirements noted a change in the law that resulted in a shift of hiring and promotion to the institutions. To promote someone now, a position opening must be posted in the nationwide gazette and anyone can apply for the position. AUBG, like institutions in the United States, promotes based on its own internal tenure and promotion criteria; for example, it does not post an opening for an associate professorship when it intends to promote an assistant professor to this position.

According to the staff member, AUBG is trying to find ways to comply with the law through some sort of supplemental procedure. This problem of titles and rankings presents a challenge to administrators and contributes to broader tensions between

Bulgarian and expatriate faculty members.

129 The curriculum has been somewhat affected by the compromises required to

“serve two masters.” One faculty member described what he felt were “major gaps” in the general education curriculum, including the lack of course offerings in sociology or psychology. Another faculty member lamented the prescriptive requirements of coursework in Bulgarian history. Of the 40 courses in history, according to the faculty member, only four or five can focus on Bulgaria because courses on U.S., Latin

American, European, and Russian history must also be offered. For students, and for most faculty not involved in accreditation, these issues go unnoticed. One faculty member commented that the Bulgarian authorities have not been able to impose any

Bulgarian requirements on the study process itself. The study process and classroom pedagogy are not affected negatively by the accreditation requirements. In the eyes of the students, and most of the faculty and administrators, the educational process at AUBG is wholly American, not Bulgarian. As one student noted, “I studied in other universities in the States and I can’t see any big difference in teaching or studying here or just regular life. It’s like life on [a U.S.] campus.” Thus the university is largely successful in maintaining its autonomy. The accommodations that AUBG makes to fit in with

Bulgarian law do not fundamentally limit its ability to differentiate itself and to offer an alternative to most Bulgarian institutions.

In seeking to differentiate itself from Bulgarian higher education and resist national influence, has AUBG isolated itself? Several faculty and administrators pointed out emphatically that the university is called the “American University in Bulgaria”

(italics added), not, as would be expected based on university naming conventions, the

American University of Bulgaria. The preposition is telling, as became clear through the

130 data collection. An institution that is “of” a country implies that it is closely aligned with the native culture, integrated into the academic system, and in some ways representative of that country and academic culture. AUBG is not in this sense “of” Bulgaria. It is “in”

Bulgaria: that is where the university is located. Its interaction with the surrounding context, as perceived by the participants in this study, is limited.

One way to understand the extent to which AUBG is isolated from Bulgarian academia is to look at faculty interaction with colleagues at other institutions in the region. Interaction is limited, most faculty members agree. Not surprisingly, very few expatriate faculty have strong ties to colleagues at other institutions. In contrast, most of the Bulgarian faculty were eager to collaborate with colleagues at other institutions and had positive experiences to report. Yet, the desire to collaborate is often not sufficient.

One Bulgarian faculty member elaborated on several factors impeding greater interaction.

He cited AUBG’s location in Blagoevgrad as a problem since most of the academics in the country and the center of intellectual life are in Sofia, about a 90-minute drive away.

This distance isolates AUBG from academic circles. The second problem, he noted, is that “expatriate faculty, when they come here, very often they do not have any professional links with people in this region. And if they stay here three to five years, they don’t have much chance to establish such links.” One expat faculty member in his second year at AUBG confirmed this:

I haven’t had much [interaction with academics at other Bulgarian institutions].

As a matter of fact, the only colleague that I know from Sofia University I met

when I was still at [my previous university in the United States]. Just the fact that

Southwest University shares the building with us, we have almost nothing to do

131 with them last year. We’ll see them in the stairwell or something like that. We had

virtually no interaction.

Some expat faculty members remain long enough to establish links and forge collaboration with counterparts at other institutions. But they are the exception, not the rule. As a result, according to a Bulgarian faculty member, “We exist somewhat separated from Bulgarian higher education.” Some faculty feel no remorse whatsoever about this separation. “I don't think there’s anything specifically Bulgarian about the university, I think there’s just the location,” commented one expat faculty member. A

Bulgarian faculty member commented that for her, Bulgaria stops at the door to AUBG, and in her view, this was positive. Another Bulgarian faculty member who completed a

Ph.D. in the United States confided that if it were not for AUBG, she would not be working in Bulgarian academia at all.

Indeed, remaining distinct or walled off from the Bulgarian system is seen as beneficial in many respects. AUBG manages to distance itself from some of the less savory characteristics that have come to be associated with higher education in the region. As one faculty member noted, there are positive and negative aspects to being separated from Bulgarian academia. “For example,” the faculty member noted, “some of the problems that exist and are very common in the Bulgarian system . . . first of all, corruption . . . I am 110% sure that these problems don’t exist [at AUBG].” In addition to corruption, the attitude of instructors toward their teaching responsibilities is viewed as a positive difference between AUBG and other institutions in the region. “Very often,” said one AUBG faculty member, “Bulgarian professors are . . . not very serious about their

[teaching] responsibilities.” Several AUBG faculty members echoed this sentiment based

132 on their experience teaching in other institutions. Another faculty member said about colleagues at other Bulgarian institutions:

You can miss a lecture or two or five and it will not lead to any major

consequences for your career, which of course here doesn’t happen . . . And so

even though roughly 60% of instructors [at AUBG] this year are Bulgarians, I

think still the style is such and the framework is so rigorous that we’re completely

different in these aspects from Bulgarian universities.

Students from a range of countries underscored these differences between AUBG and the universities their friends back home in other former Eastern-bloc countries were attending. In these students’ eyes, being completely separate from a system that they perceived as rife with corruption and staffed by indifferent, unprofessional professors was one of the most attractive features of AUBG.

The extent to which AUBG students interact with their peers at the neighboring state university, Southwest University, also provides insights into AUBG’s integration into Bulgarian academic and social life. A hindrance to this interaction is that the majority of AUBG students are not Bulgarian; thus, a language barrier exists for many of them. For some students this matters little. As one non-Bulgarian student commented,

“I’m living in Bulgaria and I don’t know much Bulgarian. I don’t need it.” Beyond the language barrier, Bulgarian and non-Bulgarian students alike indicated a psychological distance between them and their peers at the neighboring Southwest University. This distance could be seen as a class or status barrier rather than a language barrier. One

Bulgarian student commented, “I went to their canteen at Southwest University and the topics they discussed had nothing to do with what we discuss. They are different people.

133 They’re just completely different.” One example of these differences cited by this student was chalga, a pop-folk that blends modern dance beats with traditional Balkan and

Gypsy rhythms and melodies (Sotirova, 2013). Although some students at AUBG like chalga, according to this student, it is not nearly as popular as with students at Southwest

University. The implication of this comment was that chalga was representative of a narrower, more provincial Bulgarian worldview, in contrast with AUBG’s more global perspective.

The national contexts of AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG have affected these institutions in many ways. Like other universities in these countries, they had to contend with the political and economic environment. The relationship with context, however, is not unidirectional, but rather a dynamic exchange of influence. Each of these institutions, by negotiating its place in the national education landscape, has exerted some influence on its surrounding context. Simply by persisting in their efforts, they show that alternatives are possible, even if they are “odd animals.”

Local Influences

At the local level, within the institutions, the theme that emerged across all three universities was the importance of the people who make up the institution. The leadership of the institutions through various phases of development and the mix of faculty and staff were cited by many as having a significant impact on how these universities function today. The question of expatriate leadership seemed significant. Two institutions, AUCA and AUBG, mainly relied on expatriate (U.S.) leaders, whereas SEEU has always been led by a local academic. Expatriate leadership has plusses and minuses. An expatriate leader presumably brings to the position a deep familiarity with the organizational system

134 and culture of the model that is being imported. An expatriate leader might find it easier to establish a rapport with foreign stakeholders, such as the U.S. Department of State and

OSI. They may also be viewed as more closely linked to a governing board that has a majority of foreign members. This arrangement can be viewed as positive to the governing board, which might see the president as one of its own kind. From the outside, however, the president’s power might be diminished by the perception that he or she is simply doing the bidding of the governing board. Another downside is that an expatriate leader might be less effective in making connections with local leaders, education ministry officials, or rectors of other universities in the country. This is particularly true when there is a language barrier. The result can exacerbate perceptions of the university as isolated from academic life in the country.

American University of Central Asia.

AUCA started out as a department within the Kyrgyz National State University. It was the visionary leadership of Camilla Sharshekeeva, the founder and dean of the

Kyrgyz-American School, that eventually led to the creation of an independent university, the American University of Kyrgyzstan, which was subsequently renamed the

American University of Central Asia (AUCA). Dr. Sharshekeeva’s ability to build relationships for the department and the university was crucial for AUCA’s survival during the early years. Her reputation within academic and political circles in the country allowed her to establish the trust of students and their parents. In a political culture strongly based on patronage, her personal involvement, along with her core team of local faculty members, provided stability for the university to develop. Dr. Sharshekeeva’s reputation eventually landed her the post of minister of education and science under

135 President Akaev, an appointment that further bolstered the university’s reputation. Her departure for the ministry appointment came at a time when OSI was more deeply involved in establishing the university’s governance system. Although she returned following her appointment, soon thereafter a very public falling out with the president,

David Huwiler, resulted in her leaving for good the institution she had founded. The departure of the founder, according to one administrator, allowed the university to grow in a way it might not have done otherwise. It also seemed to mark a decisive break from the university’s initial period of local leadership to its more recent period under expatriate, namely U.S., leadership.

U.S. academics have led AUCA since it became an independent university. John

Clark was its first president, serving until 1999 in what he described as a “dual monarchy” with the founder, Camilla Sharshekeeva. Clark had initially come to

Kyrgyzstan on a Fulbright grant. After departing AUCA he remained in the region, engaged in education development projects. He was succeeded by David Huwiler (1999–

2004), John Dreier (acting president, 2004–05), Ellen Hurwitz (2006–2011), and Andrew

Wachtel (since 2011). Prior to coming to AUCA, Huwiler had served as vice president for academic affairs at Champlain College (and later served as AUBG president). Dreier was chair of the Business Administration Department at AUCA before becoming acting president upon Huwiler’s departure. After leaving AUCA, he held a leadership position in several USAID higher-education development projects. Hurwitz had previous executive experience as president at two small, private liberal-arts institutions: Albright

College and New England College. Wachtel, an accomplished scholar in Russian and

East European studies, was dean of Northwestern University’s Graduate School prior to

136 his appointment as AUCA president. The appointment of expatriate presidents seemed to be a conscious strategy to distance the university from the patronage networks within the

Kyrgyz political elite. I discussed the trend of foreign presidents with a senior administer.

He pointed out that other examples of American universities overseas, the American

University of Beirut and the American University of Cairo, have “never had a local president.” He added:

Should [AUCA] have a local president? At some point, it should have a local

president, I think . . . Despite everything, there is a certain level of respect,

perhaps grudging, for outside knowledge and expertise that wouldn’t be given to a

local. It’s a sort of cachet of being an American. I think, for the foreseeable

future, until the country as a whole is vaguely normal, it would be difficult to

have a local president, unless you had a very unusual local person. I don’t think

it’s going to happen anytime soon, but who knows?

Indeed, foreign expertise still commands respect in the Kyrgyz Republic, perhaps a symptom of the proliferation of foreign-aid agencies in the country. Moreover, being associated too closely with local political elites can be fraught with danger for the university’s reputation. When President Akaev was discredited because of corruption,

AUCA’s foreign leadership and patronage shielded it from local political fallout. When the Akaev administration was replaced by an even more brazenly corrupt Bakiev administration, the change underscored the benefit of maintaining distance from local political ties. As a result, AUCA has been able to preserve its reputation for integrity through the volatile political climate.

137 According to several interviewees, President Wachtel, more than his predecessors, has sought to build bridges with other institutions. The strategy is to raise the public profile of the university. Wachtel’s professional-level fluency in Russian and conscious efforts to speak Kyrgyz at public events show the university’s efforts at burnishing its public image. The president makes regular appearances on local programs.

According to a former administrator, Wachtel has focused on engaging with the public, which has resulted in success cultivating local Kyrgyz donors for projects like the New

Generation Academy and building the new campus. He has also taken a more activist role in promoting AUCA as a model for other higher-education institutions to emulate.

The mix of local and expatriate staff at AUCA seems collegial, according to most participants. Some expatriate faculty raised the concern that some aspects of university operations were reminiscent of the Soviet period. The IT department, according to several faculty, seemed intent on controlling the use of technology to the point of discouraging faculty from pursuing any innovative approaches to it in their classrooms. Students raised this issue in the focus groups. They noted that some of the administrative staff were more

Soviet than American in the way they treated students. Several students suggested that the university hire exclusively people who have taken part in a U.S.–government exchange program so that they are better suited to the more Western-oriented culture of

AUCA. Given the labor market in the country, an IT professional with substantial overseas experience would likely command a much higher salary than AUCA could provide.

The governing board of AUCA serves as an additional point of intersection with the international community. It also provides a degree of continuity, as its composition

138 has changed little in the past decade. Members include representatives from OSI, Indiana

University, Bard College, Central European University (founded by George Soros), and the United Nations, as well as local and regional stakeholders and illustrious alumni.

According to administrators, the board is fairly hands-off when it comes to the operations of the university. As one interviewee commented,

There are boards that micromanage and drive you crazy. There are boards that do

nothing. And then there are really good boards that actually work as advisors and

do a good job helping the president shape the university. This board is number

two.

Although the board may have little affect on day-to-day operations, one of its primary functions is to contribute to the university’s fundraising, where “doing nothing” certainly is not an accurate characterization. In this area, the connections provided by the board have benefited AUCA, not only monetarily but also in linking the university to a global academic and political network that enhances its international reputation.

South East European University.

SEEU’s leadership has been consistent, with many of the core supporters from its founding still holding leadership positions. Only two rectors have led the institution since

2001, both from Macedonia’s Albanian community. The founding rector, Alajdin Abazi, an esteemed academic in the field of electromagnetics, remained in his role for the first decade of the institution. He was succeeded by Zamir Dika, who was re-appointed to a second four-year term as rector in June 2014. SEEU took pains to ensure that its initial appointment and subsequent reappointment of Dika as rector were perceived as open and transparent. The procedures for appointing the rector were posted on the university

139 website and reflect precisely the process outlined in the administration’s strategic- planning documents. This effort to contrast SEEU’s process with the often opaque and highly politicized process for appointing rectors to state universities in Macedonia underscores the university’s commitment to academic integrity.

Dika taught for several years in SEEU’s Department of Contemporary Sciences and Technologies. He is a full professor with a background in mechanical engineering.

He previously served as a member of parliament (MP) representing the Democratic Party of Albanians (DPA). While in parliament, Dika was a member of the parliamentary delegation to the OSCE and the parliamentary group for cooperation with the European

Parliament. As an MP, Dika was involved in early discussions with representatives from the European Union about establishing a university in Macedonia that would provide higher education in the Albanian language. His involvement at what proved to be the inception of SEEU links him closely to the original mission of the university. His political connections within Macedonia and in the European Union reflect the university’s history and its orientation toward integration with Europe.

The composition of the university board reflects international collaboration in the leadership of SEEU, as well as the historical ties of the institution to global networks. It consists of nine members: three from outside Macedonia, including two Europeans and one American; three from the university senate; and three from Macedonia representing the business, academic and public interests (Farrington & Abazi, p. 12). The chair of the board, Dr. Dennis Farrington, was instrumental in the founding of SEEU. An expert in higher-education law, he has been a higher-education consultant with the Council of

Europe and other international organizations for two decades. Dr. David Zaret, vice

140 president for international affairs at Indiana University, also serves on the SEEU board, reflecting the continuing partnership between these universities. Other members include

Dr. Pavel Zgaga, a professor of education and dean from the University of Ljubljana, whose research focuses on higher-education development in the contemporary European context. He has taken part in numerous projects with European and global institutions, including UNESCO, the European Commission, the Council of Europe, and the World

Bank (SEEU website, 2015). Three senior faculty members from SEEU serve on the board, as do prominent experts in law, finance, and international politics from

Macedonia. The board reflects the aspirations of SEEU for integration with Europe and its members provide strong linkages with international institutions.

American University in Bulgaria.

AUBG has experienced significant turnover in its leadership. The top administrative positions—president and provost—have consistently been held by academics from the United States until only recently. The initial leadership appointments came from the University of Maine, AUBG’s founding partner. The first president, Ed

Laverty (1991–92), was a faculty member who had held several administrative positions, including dean of the College of Arts and Humanities, at the University of Maine

(Laverty, 1993). His tenure as AUBG president was short-lived, and he was replaced by

Michael Orenduff, who served as interim president for one year. Orenduff was president of the University of Maine in Farmington from 1988 to 1993, overlapping with his interim appointment at AUBG. After AUBG, he returned to Maine and became the chancellor of the seven-campus system for two years. In 1993, Julia Watkins was appointed AUBG president. Dr. Watkins is the longest-serving AUBG president,

141 remaining in her position until 2003. Her appointment continued the connection to the

University of Maine, where she had been dean of the College of Social and Behavioral

Sciences and interim vice president for academic affairs at the Orono campus.

Following Watkins, the trend of University of Maine appointees was interrupted.

Watkins was followed by Reynold Bloom (2003–05), who had senior administrative experience at the State University of New York, as well as in government positions at

USAID and the Peace Corps (Sofia Echo, 2003). Dr. W. Michael Easton served two terms as president, from 2005 to 2007 and from 2012 to 2014, bookending the presidency of David Huwiler (2007–2012). Easton was also a product of the University of Maine system, having served as president of the Presque Isle campus. This succession of presidents underscores the crucial role of the University of Maine, which extended well beyond the initial years of the university. David Huwiler was not a product of the

University of Maine but came to AUBG from the network of American Universities

Abroad, having served previously as president of AUCA and the American University of

Nigeria. He was well known to OSI and USAID through his previous presidential appointments. Following Easton’s second term, Kevin Aspegren was appointed president and served from 2014 to 2015. Aspegren’s appointment was somewhat of a departure from his predecessors. Although he had served as the director of Ohio University’s

Entrepreneurship Center, his background was a mix of international business, nonprofit work, and entrepreneurship.

A notable shift occurred with the most recent presidential appointment. Upon the resignation of Aspegren in fall 2015, the AUBG board appointed one of its own members, Stratsi Kulinski, to lead the university beginning in January 2016. Kulinski is

142 the first Bulgarian president and the first alumnus of AUBG to lead the university. This shift to local leadership may signify the university’s confidence in its place within

Bulgarian higher education. It also underscores the growing community of AUBG alumni, who are now advancing to high-profile positions within Bulgaria and beyond.

This appointment also reflects the trend in faculty hiring, where AUBG is making an effort to hire more Bulgarians with doctorates from western universities.

AUBG’s board of trustees has played an active role not only in university governance, but also in connecting AUBG to key partners and networks. AUBG’s board of trustees had 23 members in fall 2015. The board includes two trustees affiliated with the University of Maine—AUBG’s original U.S. partner—and numerous luminaries, mainly from Bulgaria, connected with international business and academics. AUBG also has a university council, which is primarily an honorary body. The council membership reflects both the history of the university and its connectedness with academic and political networks. Among its illustrious members are George Soros, Ambassadors John

Menzies and Sol Polansky, and H.R.H. Princess Maria-Luisa of Bulgaria.

Role of Mission and Values

Having a focused mission can be a key factor in a university’s adaptability

(Sporn, 1999), particularly for a relatively young institution emerging in a turbulent period. Although AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG developed in different circumstances, they share some similarities in their institutional missions. The institutions were intended to present a new model of higher education in their respective countries, acting to facilitate change or reform. They set as a goal the preparation of the next generation of leaders.

Whether explicitly or not, they were seen as the bearers of a specific set of principles that

143 would promote some reform or improvement. Principles associated with liberal education seemed to be central to each of the institutions, and the objective of developing critical thinking in students was shared across the participants in this study. Tolerance for diverse people and viewpoints was a core principle. Their missions differentiated in important areas, too. Integral to SEEU’s mission is the provision of higher education in Albanian, whereas AUBG, from the outset, and eventually AUCA established English as the language of instruction. For SEEU, research has also played a more significant role in its mission, whereas AUCA and AUBG have placed greater emphasis on undergraduate teaching. Yet each institution in its own way has sought to be a model for others in the region.

Table 4.3

Comparison of Mission Statements in 2015

Institution Mission Statement

AUCA American University of Central Asia is an international, multi-

disciplinary learning community in the American liberal arts

tradition that develops enlightened and impassioned leaders for the

transformation of Central Asia.

SEEU (i) pursue excellence in teaching and research;

(ii) be open to all on the basis of equity and merit regardless of

ethnicity;

(iii) actively seek co-operation with other universities, both in the

Republic of Macedonia, in South East Europe and internationally

144 AUBG The mission of the American University in Bulgaria is to educate

students of outstanding potential in a community of academic

excellence, diversity, and respect and to prepare them for

democratic and ethical leadership in serving the needs of the region

and the world.

As political circumstances changed in AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG’s respective countries, the points of emphasis in their missions seemed to evolve. The expectations that these universities would play a reformist role in higher education and achieve immediate results were tempered by reality. Local authorities saw value in allowing the institutions to operate in their countries. The universities offered a link to transnational networks and brought a modicum of prestige to the authorities for being open to having Western-style institutions. It also proved politically useful for government leaders to be able to cite the presence of these universities when they were accused of not supporting reforms.

Liberal Education

American University of Central Asia.

AUCA’s mission statement reflects much of what emerged in my interviews with faculty, staff, and students: the university’s international, specifically American identity; its liberal-arts emphasis; and its goal of preparing leaders who will ultimately play a role in transforming the region. As a corollary to the mission, AUCA also offers a direct statement of its values on its website (2015):

American University of Central Asia values responsible freedom in the search for

truth and justice. We are honest, self-critical, and respectful. We cherish critical

145 inquiry and investigative learning both for their own sake and for the development

of an open, diverse, and just society that suits the region in which we learn and

serve.

If the mission statement defines what AUCA is and what it sees as its purpose, the values statement reveals more of the underlying principles of the university. The values statement shows a conscientiousness about regional context, seeking a just society that

“suits the region.”

When faculty and staff at AUCA described what sets AUCA students apart, the most common theme was that they are independent, critical thinkers not afraid to question everything. As one administrator said, “They are much more contentious [than peers at other universities] . . . Local people say our students are nagliye [audacious], which means that they ask questions and they don’t just do what they are told, which I think is great.” A faculty member seconded this idea, saying, “I think this university . . . does an exceptional job in getting them to think on their own, and to openly think, so these liberal-arts classes they have, yeah, it allows them to think on their own.” A third faculty member underscored this same trait in AUCA students: “I think AUCA students are more thinking . . . They might not be afraid to tell their employer or suggest things to their employer, and they might be more capable [of doing] things on their own.”

Independent-minded, critical thinkers was the consistent image of AUCA students, one that is very much in line with the values statement. In a Central Asian context, with its traditional expectations of reverence for those who hold a higher position in society, this characteristic of AUCA graduates can be striking. What some might perceive positively as confidence and a can-do attitude, others might see simply as impudence.

146

South East European University.

SEEU’s mission statement puts academic excellence foremost. Second is its identity as a multiethnic institution. Lastly, SEEU emphasizes its collaboration domestically, regionally, and internationally, underscoring its connectedness with a wider academic community. Unlike AUCA or AUBG, SEEU places less emphasis on the liberal-education model. Although SEEU worked closely with Indiana University in its early years, it was oriented toward the European higher-education model, rather than the

U.S. liberal-education model that the United States adopted from the United Kingdom and Germany. Similarly, SEEU does not make an explicit statement in its public documents about its values. Instead, in its 2009–2012 strategic plan, SEEU’s institutional values come through in its declaration of ambitions:

We are committed to positive change, to celebrating diverse cultures, to

embracing enterprise and to deliver[ing] quality higher education in a cost-

effective way. In all that we do, we build on the distinctiveness of our regional

heritage, on our founders’ ambitions and on our first ten years of steady progress

(p. 6).

Thus taken together, the mission statement and declaration of ambitions encapsulate

SEEU’s mission and values.

American University in Bulgaria.

AUBG’s commitment to liberal education is central to its identity as an institution. As one former senior administrator aptly said, liberal education is the “soul”

147 of the university. AUBG’s academic catalog opens with the university’s mission and strategic vision, followed by a statement on liberal learning:

AUBG strives to provide its students with a liberal education - an education that

nurtures both the skills needed for successful careers and an ongoing intellectual

curiosity that leads to a thirst for a rewarding life and productive role in a

democratic society. A liberal education prepares students to live responsible,

productive, and creative lives in a dramatically changing world. It is an education

that fosters a well-grounded intellectual resilience, a disposition toward lifelong

learning, and an acceptance of responsibility for the ethical consequences of ideas

and actions. (p. 4).

This commitment to liberal education has been a core value of AUBG since its founding.

Despite changes in the higher-education landscape, this identity has remained consistent.

At times, according to a senior administrator, this commitment has required AUBG to resist pressure from board members and donors to pursue activities that would be costly and depart from the core mission of the institution. In fact, the liberal-education commitment is what attracts key supporters of AUBG, according to a former administrator. There is no tension between messaging for donors like USAID and OSI and the mission of AUBG. The former administrator added that you need to “know who your donors are,” but you also need to know “what your soul is.” To this administrator, the commitment to liberal education was the soul of the institution.

The liberal-education mission of AUBG forms the foundation for the university’s approach to general education. Students at AUBG choose from among ten possible majors: American studies, business administration, computer science, economics,

148 European politics, history and civilizations, information systems, journalism and mass communication, mathematics, and political science and international relations.

Regardless of major, all students must fulfill AUBG’s general education requirements.

The philosophy behind the general education requirements, according to the AUBG catalog, “rests on the conviction that AUBG graduates should be prepared to act responsibly as participants in a democratic society and to find fulfillment in the enjoyment of the moral, intellectual, and artistic achievements of the human enterprise— both past and present” (p. 49). The breadth of the general education requirements differentiates AUBG from most institutions in the region, where students primarily take coursework only within their specific discipline. It has opened AUBG up to criticism from colleagues in Bulgarian academic circles that the university is little more than a high school with a shallow education. As one professor in computer science pointed out, however, “Students who want to write software code and gain a deep understanding of programming should go to Sofia University; students who want to run their own IT companies someday should come to AUBG.” For him, this summed up the advantages and disadvantages of the liberal-education curriculum.

The concept of liberal education goes beyond merely the curriculum to permeate university culture. Nearly all of the faculty participants in this study described how the liberal- education mission of AUBG influenced their approach to their work. Their understanding of the key elements of a liberal education was consistent. One faculty member summed it up this way: “I think the university and the values of the university promote critical thinking, civic responsibility . . . These are the values that any university, or at least any liberal-arts university, would promote.” A second faculty member

149 commented, “I think [the liberal-education mission] really does [influence my teaching], the curriculum at AUBG really is . . . founded on liberal-arts ideals, which are going back to the original understanding of liberal arts, what is the fitting education for a free person, what skills does a free citizen need to learn . . .” Critical thinking and civic responsibility are core characteristics of liberal education. Freedom of choice was also closely associated with the concept of liberal education. Said another? faculty member, “So the way I teach I think it is defined by the fact that I am at a liberal-arts institution. First of all, I have a lot of freedom over the content of my classes. I have a lot of freedom to choose the topics of my classes as well.” Many faculty cited this autonomy in choosing content for their courses as a significant factor in their decision to remain at AUBG, despite offers from other institutions.

The student participants in this study also showed an appreciation of the liberal- education mission. What does it mean to the students? Apart from process-oriented aspects of the liberal education—for example, being able to choose your own courses— what emerged from the student participants was a view of liberal education as preparation for being rational, responsible citizens. It is interesting to note how closely this view echoed the stated liberal-education goal of teaching students to live responsible, productive lives. Students readily noted the differences between AUBG and more traditional institutions in the region. One student from a former Soviet republic commented, “. . . AUBG is supposed to be a liberal-arts institution and [it is], compared with both post-Soviet institutions and Bulgaria, where in the universities they have a completely different system of education, you cannot choose courses, you are obliged to take courses in a certain order, you cannot change professors, you rarely have

150 assignments in the course of the semester, just have a final exam at the end.” This rigidity of more traditional institutions in the region prompted considerable criticism from student participants.

In contrast, AUBG adheres to a system in which students can choose classes and often their instructor. Another student valued the breadth of the liberal education he was receiving at AUBG, noting that “being able to study in a liberal-arts school is a good thing, because first [and foremost] you get educated on how to be a civilized citizen, a rational citizen with a general knowledge of everything, not just a narrow knowledge of a particular [subject].” Another student echoed the intellectual outcomes of liberal education: “Being a rational critical thinker, good analyst. Just don’t get persuaded by some emotions, analyze the situation. Think all pros and cons, then make a decision. I think [those are] the main values, but nothing connected with religious or political values.” At the same time, this student rejected the suggestion that a political or religious ideology was being imposed upon AUBG students. For him, intellectual freedom goes hand in hand with responsibility: “In liberal-arts education systems, they give you more independence, but at the same time, independence—it’s a responsibility . . . freedom, independence, it’s a responsibility, so it’s up to you how you will spend your time.” This student, from Central Asia, could hardly have been a more articulate champion of liberal education.

Role Model/Influence on Higher-education System

American University of Central Asia.

Unlike SEEU and AUBG, AUCA began as a local initiative that only later became an international project with significant support from the U.S. government and George

151 Soros’s Open Society Institute. Nevertheless, it was envisioned that the university would influence the development of higher education in newly independent Kyrgyzstan.

Although it somewhat overstates the case, the AUCA website highlights this transformational purpose:

AUCA has emerged from its founding years, having established its reputation for

dedication to democratic values, individual freedoms and the spirit of innovation,

and having played a leading role in transforming the educational system of this fast

changing region. Founded on the liberal arts tradition and with self-governance,

AUCA looks confidently to the future (A Brief History of AUCA, AUCA website,

2015).

The website rhetoric was echoed by many of the participants in the study, who believe that the graduates of AUCA will bring about change in the country. As one faculty member said, “The mission of AUCA—we are preparing, actually we are making change in this country.“ AUCA students “have a different vision,” distinguishing them from their peers and preparing them to make a difference in their country.

Beyond students, AUCA has been able to influence some aspects of higher education in more direct ways. When the ministry of education created new curricular standards, AUCA experts were invited to participate in advisory committees. In the case of some humanities and social sciences, the AUCA participants have had significant say in the design of the standards. In other disciplines, such as economics and journalism, the

AUCA experts carried little weight in the conversation. In their study of the AUCA journalism department, Skochilo, Toralieva, Freedman, and Shafer (2013) reflect on its largely unsuccessful efforts to influence the journalism curriculum in the country:

152 There was much resistance from other journalism departments as AUCA tried to

influence changes in standards that are not only outdated but also in many cases,

contradict the western understanding of the role of the profession itself. AUCA’s

efforts were largely unsuccessful, and the ministry made only minimal changes in

its standards (p. 418).

Nevertheless, AUCA succeeded in swaying the ministry to approve a less rigid standard curriculum that allowed the department to pursue its vision while remaining in compliance. AUCA’s new journalism curriculum, according to the authors, is actively studied by other universities.

The AUCA journalism curriculum provides an illustration of how the university negotiates its place within the national context in Kyrgyzstan. Transplanting a Western curriculum to the Kyrgyz context was not possible, as the authors acknowledged. The university instead adapted the Bard College curriculum to meet the nature of the journalism profession in the Kyrgyz Republic. Students saw greater opportunities in the fields of public relations, advertising, and corporate or nonprofit communications. To most students, traditional journalism was not appealing. Attitudes toward traditional media, the low salaries of journalists, and uncertainty about the sustainability of traditional news outlets prompted the faculty to modify the Bard curriculum to better suit the needs of the Kyrgyz context.

Academic integrity, also a key feature in the values statement, was cited by most participants as a distinguishing characteristic of AUCA. The anti-corruption impulse was embedded in AUCA’s culture from the very beginning. Founder Camilla Sharshekeeva established the Kyrgyz-American School within the Kyrgyz National State University “to

153 create sort of a pocket of honesty within the Kyrgyz [National] State University,” according to a former administrator. One faculty member saw this sense of integrity as a part of the AUCA spirit, essential to the identity of students, faculty, and staff:

I think it’s the whole AUCA spirit that actually tells you we are different. We are

not buying grades. We’re not selling grades. Students do not buy grades. Students

earn their degrees. I think we have a reputation in this, in the local society, of the

non-corrupted university. And there is a lot of standing behind this reputation. It’s

not that it just came from heaven, you know. It’s something that a number of

people worked for, for so many years. So I think it’s more about the attitudes

inside of the university, and, I mean, I’ve never heard of the cases when there was

even any attempts to bribe someone.

This reputation for honesty truly sets AUCA apart and plays a significant role in attracting some of the best students in the country. In fact, in Alan DeYoung’s (2011) survey of students on the appeal of universities, one of the arguments in favor of AUCA was that “unlike national universities in Kyrgyzstan, there was no corruption at AUCA”

(p. 27). The academic integrity emphasized at AUCA could play a gradually transformative role in the region as more transparent practices come to be expected at other universities by students and their parents.

AUCA has often sought to be a showcase for other institutions, demonstrating what higher education might become in the country. “There was a hope also that the rest of the educational system in Kyrgyzstan would be getting something out of [AUCA’s presence], but, generally, that has not been the case,” said one faculty member. He added that “most of the educational institutions have been rather jealous and rather conservative, and often

154 they have viewed AUCA as a negative stand-out that somehow assumes it is a model, but

[the other educational institutions] do not think that’s the case.” The strong public university tradition has deep roots in Kyrgyz society, carried over from the Soviet legacy.

State universities with long and illustrious legacies as higher-education institutions have resisted the kinds of change promoted by AUCA and its Western backers. AUCA is still regarded by other universities as a “strange thing” that is tolerated, but not a model to be widely adopted.

AUCA’s inability to spark wider changes in Kyrgyz higher education was noted by some as a failure to fulfill its mission. A former USAID official said that one of the main criticisms of AUCA was its failure to become a “change agent.” This failure was a disappointment to aid officials seeking a more concrete return on investment. The former official said that for USAID, it was important that the university contribute somehow to higher-education reforms, but that little diffusion of ideas to other universities was taking place. These thoughts were shared by a former AUCA administrator, who also noted

“very little diffusion” of ideas and practices in academic institutions in the Kyrgyz

Republic. He added with disappointment that within the higher-education system

“corruption remains rampant, management is still very top-down, and there has been little reform of higher education—it remains very Soviet.” In this respect, AUCA’s influence has been limited.

South East European University.

When the international community established SEEU, it saw the university as a means not only of integrating ethnic Albanians into Macedonian society, but also as a way of bringing higher education in the country into the emerging European system.

155 Although U.S. influence was present, SEEU was to play a Europeanizing role within the

Macedonian higher-education system. International backers expected SEEU, as a

Western-oriented university, to promote integration and convergence, much like the

European Union and Bologna Process (Bacevic, 2014). Faculty participants in this study seemed to believe that SEEU had fallen short of these expectations. As one faculty member said, reflecting on the observations of SEEU’s U.S. and EU partners:

I could see some disappointment from the U.S. universities, saying you guys are

really not moving [in] that direction. You are moving just to meet the demand that

is coming from the local. [That] is your priority. Instead of being an international

university, you are a local university. You basically put your staff in a local context

and are a local university… We were the leader university in the region at that

point. We have not done much to satisfy being a model university. We have not

really proved that this is feasible, [that] you can really still be a model in the region

and increase the quality of higher education.

As a university, SEEU was more focused on ensuring enrollments and sustaining the university rather than being an instrument for promoting reforms in Macedonian higher education. In its focus on operating efficiently, however, it is possible that SEEU played an influential role after all. A second faculty member saw the influence on his colleagues in other academic institutions in Macedonia. He said that they were “often impressed by the level of procedures, policies, the way we are functioning, the way the buildings are done, the way we are organizing the teaching and the students.” He acknowledged that the older state institutions had greater capacity in terms of research but his colleagues in

156 those institutions held SEEU in high regard for its innovative and effective approaches to student learning and institutional governance.

The power-sharing arrangement between the largest Albanian party and the leading Macedonian party opens some avenues for SEEU to have some say in policymaking. One administrator noted that the university now has “a lot of contacts within the institutions where it can influence and contribute towards policymaking.” This

Albanian participation in governance was one of the objectives of the international community following the Ohrid Agreement. SEEU remains an anomaly in Macedonian higher education, but because of its close links with leaders of the Albanian community, it is included in policy discussions, whereas previously it was considered a foreign project separate from Macedonian academic life. Its role in these discussions is to encourage more rapid development toward the European higher-education model. Faculty members strive to encourage SEEU students to think bigger, beyond the borders of

Macedonia and domestic politics. One faculty member articulated this effort:

So we are also trying to make our students aware of the world outside the campus,

and outside of Macedonia. So I think we are doing very well in that respect. So

there’s still room for improvement, of course, but I think that in the surrounding

Macedonia where we live here, I think we are doing pretty well in this respect.

And other people perceive us as really kind of a foreign institution that was built

by foreigners and people who work there have different values, more Westernized

values I would say.

This faculty member expresses hope that by teaching SEEU students to think beyond the politics of Macedonia, the university is also having an affect on the surrounding

157 community. SEEU can thus play an integrating role for Macedonia, moving it closer to its—and that of the university’s founders—goal of European integration.

A key element of SEEU’s Europeanizing role is anti-corruption. Academic integrity and non-corruption were cited numerous times by faculty and students as characteristics that set SEEU apart from its Macedonian counterparts. Academic integrity, in this context, takes on great significance. As one student noted:

For me, I don’t know about; for all these universities, they don’t care, nothing.

For example, in Skopje there is a university, they have a budget but the budget is

going directly to the pockets of the president and that’s the point.

Students took pride in SEEU’s commitment to academic integrity, stating that no one could buy grades there, unlike at other universities in the country. Values did matter, according to the students and faculty alike. The values that SEEU represented— tolerance, integrity— distinguished it from other institutions in Macedonia and connected it with the international community, specifically the European Higher Education Area. As one faculty member stated:

So this university is a different story. It’s a different story. It was founded by the

international community, and all those values of the international community

were projected into [the] mission, into the vision, into the statutes of the

university, regulations and everything, and they eventually gave their fruits. I

mean today, or from 2005, we have had the first graduates and today we continue.

And our people are recognized not only through a set of skills but also values.

158 The values embodied in SEEU, in the eyes of this faculty member, place it on the same plane as universities around the world, first and foremost those in the neighboring

European Higher Education Area to which Macedonia aspires.

American University in Bulgaria.

When AUBG was founded, it was expected “to model a new form of education in the region” (AUBG, 2006)—an ambitious idea, given that only around 1000 students are enrolled at the university. The extent to which AUBG has been a model is a debate that runs through the data. Nevertheless, some degree of convergence of Bulgarian higher education and practices at AUBG seems to have occurred. The extent to which this tendency is attributable to AUBG’s presence, rather than to broader educational influences on the country, is debatable.

The national rankings introduced by the ministry of education and science raised the profile of AUBG and enhanced its ability to influence higher education in Bulgaria.

The factor used in the rankings that seemed to draw the most public attention was the employability of graduates, where AUBG scored much higher than its counterparts. As one staff member noted, such notoriety inevitably increases the curiosity of other universities as to what AUBG does to achieve this and how it does so:

Successful practices may be expected to provoke competition in the form of

implementing them somehow. For instance, AUBG teaches soft skills, which has

proven to be a recipe for success on the labor market. There has been an

increasing awareness of their importance, which is at least partially due to

AUBG’s existence.

159 Soft skills have made their way into the curriculum at many Bulgarian institutions. The use of elective courses, although often a limited selection has become a requirement.

AUBG has used an academic credit system since opening in 1991; subsequently,

Bulgarian higher education adopted this system. AUBG’s governance structure, the same as is commonly found in the United States, is also being adopted in Bulgaria, as are other changes in assessment and the accreditation process. At a structural level, student-affairs divisions have become more common in Bulgarian universities. At least some credit for this can go to the example of AUBG. One administrator I spoke with recalled specific incidences when colleagues at other institutions reached out to AUBG to look at their student support practices: “Could you come and show us how to set up a career center?” they asked, for example. In addition to student affairs, AUBG has played a role in the modernization of Bulgarian libraries, actively participating in the National Academic

Library Information System and Bulgarian Information Consortium (AUBG Strategic

Plan?, 2011, p. 10). Many of these changes were sought by reform-minded authorities in the ministry of education and science. The criteria for the ministry’s rankings were established with a conscious aim to nudge the universities vying for a top position toward changing some aspects of how they operate.

On a less tangible but not insignificant front, AUBG’s success in building a school spirit has drawn the attention of other institutions. Its influence can be seen in university symbols and rituals, which had largely faded during the socialist period of

Bulgarian history. According to one administrator, preparations for AUBG’s first graduation ceremony in 1995 sparked a frantic search for the traditional caps and gowns

160 used at U.S. universities. AUBG found a company in Sofia to produce the regalia. As one

AUBG Bulgarian professor remembered,

At that time, there was no such thing in Bulgaria. Slowly, all institutions started

doing this. Now every institution has regalia and gowns and everything. I cannot

say that this is only because of AUBG. But this was the first and all other

universities looked at it.

AUBG’s graduation in Blagoevgrad is now one of the biggest events in the city. The mayor takes part and often the minister of education and science and even the president attends.

The influence of AUBG on Bulgarian higher education, however, should not be overstated. The much larger New Bulgarian University (NBU) in Sofia was among the first private institutions to open its doors in the country and is often cited as a promising, progressive, and influential model of higher education (Ivanova, 2010;

Slantcheva-Durst, 2010). In fact, its active and outspoken former rector, , served as minister of education and science from November 2009 until January 2013.

Thus when discussing the influence of AUBG on Bulgarian higher education, it is important to recognize the many factors moving the system toward change. As one senior

AUBG administrator put it, “Singlehandedly, or in conjunction with market forces,

AUBG has changed the system.” Of course, he added, having the former rector of NBU as the minister of education helped. AUBG, this senior administrator argued, has consistently been “where the Bulgarian system is moving toward.” The Bulgarian system may indeed be moving to where AUBG is, but this by no means implies a cause and effect relationship.

161 Tolerance and Diversity

American University of Central Asia.

Although AUCA’s values statement emphasizes the university’s role in developing an “open, diverse, and just society” in the Kyrgyz Republic, the theme of tolerance and diversity was somewhat less pronounced at AUCA than at SEEU and

AUBG. Nevertheless, for the students I met with, open-mindedness and tolerance were two characteristics that they believed set AUCA students apart from their peers at other institutions in the country. When discussing how AUCA students stand out from their peers at other universities in the country, a student participant said that one of the most important distinctions was their respect for other cultures. Unlike their friends from other universities, she said, “AUCA students don’t have negative stereotypes against other nations, races, ethnic groups, or religions.” Several faculty participants echoed this thought. One described AUCA as promoting openness, where “different people and different opinions can come and live in one place.” Several participants saw promoting tolerance as integral to the university’s liberal education mission. AUCA’s annual

Diversity Week celebration was mentioned by students and faculty as one of the major extracurricular events at the university. During this event, student groups work together to showcase the culinary, artistic, and musical highlights of different countries. Student participants cited this event as one of the ways that AUCA promotes tolerance and respect for diverse cultures.

Although most AUCA students come from the Kyrgyz Republic (approximately

75%, according to one administrator), the presence of international students can be seen throughout campus. Most of these students are from other Central Asian republics of the

162 former Soviet Union, namely, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. In recent years, a significant contingent of students from Afghanistan has come to AUCA.

Through funding from the U.S. embassy in Kabul, OSI, and USAID, up to 40 students from Afghanistan enroll in AUCA each year. In a similar project that continued for several years, the U.S. embassy in Ashgabat funded the Turkmenistan AUCA

Scholarship Program that provided for the enrollment of approximately 15 Turkmen students at AUCA each year. These externally funded scholarship programs have allowed

AUCA to diversify its student population and meet enrollment goals.

The official language of instruction at AUCA is English. In its first decade as an independent university, Russian was also an official language of instruction. In fact,

President Hurwitz reported to the board in June 2007 that only 54% of courses were taught in English (Tolo, 2007). As AUCA sought to position itself as a regional university with an international image, it became a strategic priority to offer instruction in

English. The Bard partnership accelerated the effort to move to full English instruction.

The increasing number of international students from non–Russian-speaking countries such as Afghanistan underscored the need to establish English as the lingua franca in the university. English is now taught in all classes, except when it is necessary to teach in a language other than English—for example, in language classes. Nevertheless, I observed that much of the informal interaction among students—and staff—takes place in Russian.

During the Soviet period, Russian was the language of higher education and official institutions. Along with Kyrgyz, Russian remains an official language of the Kyrgyz

Republic (Najibullah, 2011). Thus, when the Kyrgyz–American School formed in 1993, instruction was mostly in Russian. Efforts to revive Kyrgyz as the primary language in

163 the country raise concerns at times about discrimination against the many ethnic minorities in the country. AUCA’s emphasis on English allows the university to create an atmosphere that is welcoming to various ethnicities who share the . It is not surprising that when students and staff are among fellow native speakers of Russian, they revert to the language they are most comfortable with. As the university develops,

English will likely come to predominate even in informal interactions.

South East European University.

The emphasis on the multiethnic composition of SEEU distinguishes it from other institutions not only in Macedonia, but also throughout the former Yugoslavia. Bacevic

(2014) sees as significant that, of the many universities in her study of higher education in the former Yugoslavia, SEEU is the only institution that has “multiculturality explicitly built into its mission” (p. 135). For the international community that founded

SEEU, it was essential that the institution play a role in integrating the ethnic Albanian population into Macedonian society. Otherwise, the viability of Macedonia as a state would be in question. The distance between the Albanian and Macedonian populations within Macedonia was significant at the time of SEEU’s founding (Czaplinski, 2008).

The populations operated largely in parallel worlds: “Each community has its own sources of information, places for socialization, schools, organizations, and political parties” (Czaplinski, 2008, p. 57). SEEU was an attempt to bridge this divide. If this effort was not made, many feared that the ethnic tensions would result in a conflict that might have splintered Macedonia and spilled over into neighboring states.

To some extent the SEEU campus achieved this purpose. Built from scratch to be an integrated campus, it stood out, with its solar panels and modern buildings, from the

164 surrounding city. It stood out as an island of tolerance, as well, according to one faculty member of Macedonian ethnicity:

And what is surprising, at the time when this university was established, it was the

year 2001, there was a conflict between Albanian and Macedonian population[s].

And when I drove here I had to go to the other side, which was not populated by

Macedonian people, and I would have to call back home and tell them that I arrived

safe. But it was very interesting, there was not a single even verbal conflict here at

this place and it was mixed from the very beginning.

In the student canteen, I observed that students tended to cluster together at lunchtime according to their native language. Albanian was the most common language I heard, although I also heard smaller groups of Macedonian speakers and mixed groups speaking

English. In classrooms, students from different ethnic backgrounds interacted in open and friendly exchanges. Faculty and staff observed this:

What’s good about [SEEU] students is that they are actually very open-minded.

You can actually notice our students compared to others. And for me, I think

that’s a great thing. They tend to know more languages, they tend to be more

aware and tolerant of different cultures, they’re much more open to diversity and

it makes them, I think, much better [at] solving life problems, which you don’t see

a lot in other universities.

When the students interacted in a classroom I observed, the lingua franca was English.

The students who were more comfortable with their English appeared to move more easily from one social group to the next regardless of their ethnic background or native language. The two focus groups I conducted reflected this mixing of students. Of the 19

165 total students who took part, 15 identified Albanian as their preferred language, while two indicated Macedonian, one indicated Turkish, and one indicated English. One of the participants summed up the attitude expressed by all of the students, “Albanians,

Macedonians, and other nationalities, we don’t feel awkward. That is changing. You saw that from the beginning. The aim was to work together with one another, to feel comfortable. And try to get better with others . . .” Based on the class observations, the focus groups, and campus environment I observed, SEEU students demonstrated that they truly are comfortable with one another, regardless of ethnicity.

SEEU’s commitment to trilingualism, embedded in the mission from the start, remains a central pillar in its identity as an institution. This commitment goes hand in hand with the university’s emphasis on tolerance and the international community’s ideal of integration. One administrator explained, “Every single student here, when they enter, no matter what program they study, will take the English Language Proficiency Test and they need to leave the university with a higher proficiency test.” All native Albanians are required to study two semesters of Macedonian, and all native Macedonians must complete two semesters of Albanian. Students believed that this was good preparation for the job market in Macedonia, where proficiency in all three languages would give them an advantage. This multilingualism also gives students the confidence that they are prepared to study outside of Macedonia. One student focus-group participant articulated this connection with the world beyond Macedonia:

This university is international. The big thing that students get here is that you can

talk in English, you can talk in Albanian, we have Albanian, we have Macedonian,

we have Turkish people, but we speak in English. We have a common language,

166 and you learn. I think the mission is to get respect and knowledge here and to get

that abroad. I think the university provides us with the best opportunities to study

abroad; I don’t think that the state university can do that. The university provides

that opportunity. I think that is better than the others.

Providing courses in three languages creates a significant administrative and financial burden on the university. Not all instructors can teach a course in all three languages. In the case of business, for example, one instructor taught two of three sections of the same course, one in English and one in Albanian. A second instructor was needed to teach the third section in Macedonian. The two instructors had to collaborate closely to ensure that their sections were consistent. One administrator articulated this administrative challenge:

And it’s also a burden, [a] financial burden, when we open the call for students;

for example, we say we open 30 places for instruction in Albanian, 30 [in]

Macedonian, 30 in English, and then maybe we don’t have enough students in

Albanian or in Macedonian and we can’t merge them and it’s not financially

sustainable to run the three different types of instruction. The ideal solution would

be that [they are all instructed in English] and that they could have the same

professor. But they are not, they don’t feel comfortable to follow instruction in

English and they prefer their mother tongue and then it produces extra cost for us.

In discussions with administrators and faculty, it became clear that there was debate about the language issues. The historical legacy of the political battles fought for the right to offer higher education in Albanian was, for many, central to SEEU’s identity. Moving away from that legacy to instruction in English would be a betrayal of that legacy. It would also be a betrayal of the vision of Macedonia as a country with its own identity

167 intertwined with its multiethnic population. For a relatively young country, one that faces questions from some in Greece and Bulgaria about its legitimacy as a nation, this question is vital. Students with whom I spoke showed a more pragmatic side and seemed to believe that in the future the university should focus on offering coursework in English to better prepare them for jobs connected with the European Union and the global economy.

American University in Bulgaria.

A commitment to diversity and respect for others are central tenets in AUBG’s mission. These tenets were also key motivators for the international community’s support for the university in light of the ethnic tensions so prevalent in the Balkans during the first two decades of AUBG’s existence. AUBG’s self-study reports for accreditors underscore the centrality of diversity to the university’s identity: “Diversity is more than a demographic concept or necessity at AUBG. It has become our hallmark—a value integrated into the classroom, residential living, and student life to create an atmosphere of mutual respect” (AUBG, 2011, p. 3). More than any other value, tolerance was cited by faculty, students, and staff as a core value—if not the core value—at AUBG. In fact, several stories illustrating the tolerant, respectful environment were repeated by multiple participants in this study. In some ways, these stories, as they circulate throughout the institution and are retold, contribute to the overall institutional narrative or saga. One of these stories describes the late arrival of a student from Russia in 2008, soon after the military conflict between Russia and the Republic of Georgia broke out. A Georgian student, because she spoke Russian, volunteered to meet the Russian student and help her carry her luggage to the dormitory. Similarly, numerous examples were also offered of

168 how Albanian and Serbian students formed friendships and worked together on assignments, despite the animosity between these two peoples surrounding the question of Kosovo’s independence. These stories took on the aura of legend and clearly those retelling them took pride in what the stories revealed about AUBG.

Tolerance is cultivated in students both in the classroom and in campus life.

Housing requires students to live in close quarters with people from different countries.

Most students are required to live on campus for the first two or three years of study at

AUBG. I observed that many of the dorm suites were occupied by students from the same country, and they proudly displayed their national flags from their residence hall windows. Thus, when one enters the courtyard of the Skaptopara residence halls, one is struck by the veritable United Nations of flags visible—Albania, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Georgia, and Russia seemed to be the most prominent. This display, which elsewhere might be interpreted as nationalistic, seemed benign, as witnessed by the friendly interactions of those same residents in the common areas of the dormitories and in the courtyards. As one administrator commented, “The fact of living in an international environment makes them less prejudiced about the others, more open to others in general.” I also observed that social events, such as a Friday evening celebration of Bulgarian Independence Day, brought students together regardless of nationality. Students reported that one of the biggest parties of the year is the “Black

Eagle” party organized by the Albanian students. Everyone is welcome—Serbians,

Russians, Macedonians—regardless of any political differences their countries might have.

169 This spirit of multiculturalism, according to one faculty member, is new to many students who come to AUBG. He argues that by living together at the university, they

“start looking with very different eyes at each other,” something he believes is one of their most important learning outcomes. Tolerance is something some students might be experiencing for the first time. A second faculty member echoed the value of this learning outcome, arguing that “teaching students to live together in an international environment—that’s very important for [students’] future life, to be with the students from Kosovo or from Georgia and Russia and Moldova, where conflict exists.” These students have to learn how to communicate diplomatically, avoiding confrontation both in the classroom and the residence hall.

Small classrooms also promote close interaction among diverse groups of students. The target student-to-faculty ratio is between 16:1 and 18:1, and the institution has more or less remained consistently within this range (AUBG, 2011). Faculty members are keenly aware of the need to encourage tolerance in the classroom. They approach many assignments in a way that intentionally promotes tolerance, ensuring that small groups include students from different language groups. As one student described his classroom experience, “They cluster us with different ethnicities and there’s always different perspectives or views on history and political situations and professors are always open to debate.” In addition, faculty members report that they encourage open and respectful debate in their classrooms. They often go to “great lengths” to hear different opinions. Students have ample opportunity to debate with professors, argue, and criticize.

One faculty member drew a comparison of the environment at AUBG to a New England town-hall meeting, the epitome of pluralistic, participatory democracy in action. This can

170 be challenging for students with no previous experience with democratic practices. For example, several faculty commented that some students from some former Soviet republics were skeptical of democratic values, but letting them express their viewpoint and debate with their classmates was an example of liberal education in practice.

For students, the diversity of AUBG was especially important for life outside the classroom. Several students argued that AUBG students are highly motivated, but not necessarily for academics. Their motivation shows through in their active involvement in student life. One student articulated this idea well:

It’s a really amazing thing, the people you can meet from all over the region. And

most of the students, I would say they are not here for education but they are very

motivated . . . Almost all the people who are here, they had to overcome

something to get here, to make their parents believe that the American style of

education was something that they really wanted to do. Many people have foreign

scholarships so they had to get some high scores to get in. But I think people are

motivated, but at least what I see is that most of the people that I know they

develop themselves outside of the classroom.

For this student, it seemed the most important lessons she and many of her fellow students were learning were outside the classroom. The co-curriculum clearly played a vital role in AUBG’s identity and distinguished it from other institutions in the region.

The ethnic diversity of AUBG was indeed a source of pride for students. For them, the diversity gave them a sense of worldliness that set them apart from their peers at home. At AUBG, joked one of the students, “you learn how to curse in twelve different languages.” To some extent, the worldliness of AUBG students is the result of self-

171 selection. Students choose to come to AUBG because of its international faculty and student population. Several of the students in this study had been exchange students in the United States, and several said they loved to travel and wanted to go outside of their home country. The opportunities for AUBG students to take part in exchanges such as

Erasmus and the International Student Exchange Programs (ISEP) was an attraction for them. One student from Russia, who had attended a prestigious math-focused high school, articulated this sense of worldliness and the gap that it created between the school mates who remained back home for university:

Whenever I go back home with my classmates . . . I don’t have much to talk about

anymore with them. You are sitting and they are discussing something different

than you want to discuss. They are discussing something about new music bands.

You are not really interested. You are like, OK let’s discuss something more

important or let’s check out the news or do you know there’s a new Android

platform? They are talking about regular [television] programs or what to drink

today. I don’t know, you’re just apart from them, in terms of interests . . . You

have seen more things in your life, you have been traveling even more. And you

have seen a lot. And whenever you share, they have this attitude, oh you, with

America [sarcastic], it happens there in America, here we are different. There is a

gap, which is because you have seen many things and they haven’t seen much.

Just school, drinking, missing classes, again drinking, home.

This sense of distance between AUBG students and their peers back home strengthens their connection with their classmates in Bulgaria. One student reported that when she was on an exchange program in the United States, she missed AUBG more than her home

172 country and longed to return to Bulgaria. This sense of a pluralistic community is not merely a concept taught in the classroom. “They teach us to be for pluralism, different points of view, to be good analysts,” said one student. She then added, “I think the main mission of the university . . . is through the aura, through the community, through the clubs, student government, through activities that are made by resident assistants.” Other students echoed this sense of a diverse international community reinforced by the co- curriculum: “And it does give us a sense of community. It’s like a little country. We have our government, we have our different clubs that represent different social groups. It kind of gives you a sense of what kinds of people there are.” Although faculty members might disagree, to AUBG students, what happened outside the classroom seemed to be the truest expression of the institution’s commitment to liberal education, diversity, and its core values. This core value of tolerance at AUBG contributes to its adaptation to a region rife with conflict, offering an environment where citizens of countries often at odds learn to live and study together.

The mission and values established by AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG have played a central role in promoting a cohesive vision of these universities. Having a mission that permeates the institution is a key factor in adapting to changes in the higher-education environment (Sporn, 1999). At all three institutions, the faculty, students, and administrators understood and believed in the mission. All universities have a mission statement. For these universities, however, established by their founders with a specific purpose in mind, the mission took on an immediacy and vitality that was remarkable.

AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG were something new and unusual in the higher-education context of their respective countries. They were private, but unlike other private for-profit

173 institutions emerging in the region. They offered a model of higher education that was unusual in countries with a strong legacy of public higher education. Because they stood out as different, it was essential that their leadership, faculty members, and students understood their purpose as an institution.

Adaptation Strategies

When we look at how these institutions have adapted, it becomes apparent that a narrative of global or national influences defining how they operate does not tell the full story. In fact, the story that emerges is of dynamic institutions negotiating these various influences to find a way to operate in their respective contexts. The institutions have learned to turn their global influences to their advantage, emphasizing their international cachet to distinguish themselves from potential competitors. These international linkages have enabled AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG to benefit from student perceptions that they are a stepping stone to a globally mobile class of professionals. Maintaining an image as elite institutions offering academic quality on par with world standards has also become an adaptation strategy, strengthened by external forms of validation, such as rankings and accreditation. They have also become adept at striking a balance between accommodating and resisting global and national influences, acting not as passive instruments in the hands of their colonial masters but as institutions with agency. They have become entrepreneurial, diversifying their donor bases and revenue streams to lessen their dependency on the foreign donors that were so necessary in their early years. Lastly, they have made adjustments in their enrollment management and marketing efforts in response to shifting markets. In this section, I provide evidence illustrating the various adaptation strategies that emerged from the data.

174 Presenting an International Image & Pathway to the World

American University of Central Asia.

The Kyrgyz Republic is a small, landlocked country in Central Asia. It has suffered from political instability and difficult economic conditions. It comes as no surprise then that many of its young citizens are attracted by opportunities outside their home country. According to many faculty and students I interviewed, AUCA is seen as a pathway to that wider world. One faculty member stated simply that “there isn’t another

American University of Central Asia in the market and [students are] aware of the way that it can connect them to international opportunities.” When talking about what differentiated AUCA students from their peers, another faculty member said they have an interest in “joining that world.” This instructor elaborated that this meant a world of globally engaged, mobile professionals, regardless of whether they live in the United

States, the European Union, Hong Kong, Singapore, or Kyrgyzstan. This desire on the part of students cannot simply be explained as “brain drain.” Several faculty members cited students who had gone abroad after AUCA and returned to Kyrgyzstan to work.

“Everyone at the beginning, they want to continue their study abroad,” said one faculty member, adding, “[S]ome of them, they stay abroad, but most of them they try to come back and use their knowledge here, to be useful here in their own country.” In fact, several of the faculty participants in this study followed that pathway, going abroad for postgraduate study or employment, then returning to Kyrgyzstan.

It was the view of all participants in this study that AUCA prepares students for internationally oriented work better than other universities in the country. English- language instruction is one factor in this preparation, but so is the university’s reputation

175 for academic integrity and rigor. One administrator shared this insight into why this international connection is so prevalent for AUCA students:

They are much more at home with the more international linked economy, they

are at home with the language of today’s business, they are fluent in English, they

are much more competitive on average when applying for jobs at international

organizations, international businesses, or starting their own businesses in

collaboration with corporations with various international stakeholders, I think.

And of course they are more honest, they do not—they tend not to—seek corrupt

ways of getting into a job, corrupt ways of getting into a new position.

Students and parents are well aware of this reputation when choosing to attend AUCA.

Those with ambitions tied to the world beyond Kyrgyzstan are attracted to AUCA. They envision it as the entry point to a globally mobile class of youth who are comfortable working anywhere, are engaged with international companies or organizations, and are driven primarily by pragmatic career aspirations. Several student participants felt this connection to a globally mobile class already as high school students, when they studied in the United States through the State Department–funded Future Leaders Exchange

(FLEX) program. One student articulated how studying at AUCA was a back-up plan, since returning to the United States after completing the FLEX program was prohibitively expensive. AUCA allowed her to feel “togetherness” with others who also had studied abroad. She added, “After returning from the exchange program, going to AUCA helps to feel connected to the people you studied with on exchange.” She felt this connection not only with the Central Asian students who had returned from abroad, but also with her

176 friends in the United States, who were also now enrolled at universities and with whom she maintained her connections, comparing notes about their studies.

The issue of remaining in Kyrgyzstan or leaving to go abroad is complex.

Administrators and faculty members repeatedly emphasized their hope that AUCA will contribute to the future development of the country. The impulse to leave is strong for many, and not only for AUCA students. One administrator stated bluntly that “for all young people in this country, getting the hell out of here is essentially the goal . . . It’s the goal for all [AUCA] students.” This same administrator noted that yet, despite the allure of going abroad, many students at AUCA realize that remaining in Kyrgyzstan may be the better opportunity:

Once they’re [at AUCA], and they realize they have opportunities—the education

that we give them gives them opportunities in this marketplace, and so they can

do, by local standards, extremely well. For a lot of students, the most ambitious

ones will always leave. But, at least for a lot of students in the middle, their

opportunities to stay here are better than if they were to go. I think some of them

change their minds, and for some of them, hopefully our education opens their

minds to certain possibilities that exist here.

The better-paying job opportunities in Bishkek are with banks, accounting firms, aid agencies, and companies with strong international ties. AUCA grads gravitate toward these opportunities. These companies also often focus their recruitment efforts on AUCA graduates, as can be seen by who takes part in career-center recruitment fairs.

AUCA’s marketing efforts appeal to this ambitious, internationally oriented student. A May 2015 AUCA recruitment video called Your Ticket to Life [all translation

177 from the original Russian by the author] highlights the main selling points for prospective students and their parents. The university employs lively to reach out to students who are considering applying to AUCA (АУЦА—Ваш билет в жизнь, 2015).

The video sets up the pitch by presenting a university applicant in the hypercompetitive environment for students in Central Asia, where over 400 universities graduate more than

300,000 students each year. These graduates, portrayed as intensely driven young men and women with dollar signs in place of their eyes, are prepared to “tear you from your path to a successful career.” Each year, the same number of graduates enter the job market in Central Asia, so by the time the applicant graduates, she will be competing with more than a million of these “hungry” job-seekers. Only 5% of these graduates, however, will be qualified for work, according to the video narrator. The others will simply place their diplomas on a shelf to gather dust. “How can you become one of the five percent?” the video asks the prospective applicant. Enroll at AUCA. Drawing an analogy to automobiles, the video presents other universities as a dull, clunky Russian- made Lada [inexpensive car with a reputation for poor quality], whereas AUCA is a bright red Lamborghini speeding AUCA graduates to careers with companies such as

“Google, Microsoft, Goldman Sachs, the World Bank, and the United Nations.” AUCA graduates receive two diplomas, one of which is a U.S. diploma “just like the one granted at Harvard, Stanford, or Berkeley.” This diploma, the video explains, is valued not only in Central Asia or the Commonwealth for Independent States (CIS), but all over the world.

178 Having made the appeal to the applicant to join the globally oriented five percent at AUCA, the video goes on to describe how studying at AUCA will differ from studying at the other 400 universities in the region:

When you become an AUCA student, you change. You study and express

yourself freely, without the slightest hint of corruption. You won’t become a

frightened little student whom nobody cares about. You will become a part of a

community of successful people. Your classmates of today will become the

directors and CEOs of tomorrow, and their telephone numbers will already be in

your contacts list.

This final theme of AUCA as an elite institution appears to be a deliberate strategy for the university, which I address later in this section. This clever marketing piece appeals to

AUCA’s target audience. They are -savvy, preferring YouTube videos to traditional marketing vehicles. They are ambitious and desire to be connected to the world in ways that many of their peers do not. The video capitalizes on the perception that AUCA is free of corruption and offers an American diploma, which is the “ticket to the future,” as the video title suggests.

When AUCA’s board of trustees changed the name of the university to reflect a more regional orientation, it was a deliberate effort to broaden the connections of the university beyond Bishkek. This strategy of reaching beyond the Kyrgyz Republic for students has gained momentum. The international brand of an “American” university is vital for achieving this aim. As one administrator noted, “When I travel in Pakistan and

India and, say, if this university was called Plato University of Management and Design and it was in Central Asia then nobody would come . . . [B]ut it’s called American

179 University so people are interested. They want to know what does that mean—American

University. And they like America.” As this administrator noted, AUCA now casts a wider net in recruitment. Sponsored scholarship programs have brought more students to

AUCA from Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan. Recruiting for full-fee paying students has focused on China, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, and India, where students might find attractive the possibility of earning a U.S. undergraduate degree closer to home and at a lower cost. This international recruitment effort, and the naming of the university, underscore its global orientation. Students who come to AUCA from other countries in the region are attracted by the same selling points, first and foremost, that AUCA will connect them to “that world” and allow them to become a part of the “five percent” of successful, globally mobile youth.

South East European University.

From its inception, SEEU was associated closely with the international community. Similar to AUCA, this reputation attracts students to the university who see it as a bridge to opportunities in the European Union and beyond. One student participant stated that opportunities to work and study outside of Macedonia are among the main motivations for students to come to SEEU:

The opportunity, and especially when this university was established at the very

beginning in that we were promised that we could attend, I mean transfer to any

other university in Europe and our degree will be recognized by any other

country, which was true because of the Bologna Process. I have colleagues who

went to Vienna, for example, and succeeded. Their degree was accepted and they

started working immediately.

180 One administrator indicated that emphasizing the international at SEEU is a deliberate strategy:

We use it to our advantage to always show that we are international, from our

management through the board, from the top management all the way down to

having a few professors teaching in different departments. So I think that is then

something that we really need to invest in more and show a competitive edge to

others.

This international image also conveys to students and parents that their tuition payment, significantly higher than at state institutions, is a worthwhile investment. As one administrator pointed out, “If you were to talk to some of the parents of the kids studying here, one of the things they will tell you is that they feel security because there are international people running the university.” The administrator added that this reflects negatively on the state of local academic culture, since some parents of Macedonian students are not comfortable sending their children to universities that they perceive as corrupt or of lower quality than SEEU. A faculty member echoed this strategy of emphasizing the international reputation of SEEU:

Well I think [SEEU’s international identity is] important because we have to give

ourselves a reason for being different from the state university and to earn our

position as a distinctive, and in some ways better, university than whatever else is

on offer in the country and in the region. And I think by laying claim to that

original decision of the international community to support us or to create us and

to establish us, it does give us something distinctive, a unique selling point.

The international reputation of SEEU is associated with three key selling points that

181 reflect the university’s adaptation. The first selling point is SEEU’s linkages with the broader world and academic and career opportunities outside Macedonia. Second is the reputation for academic quality enjoyed by SEEU, at least partly thanks to its association with the international community and its U.S.–accredited diplomas. Third is the perceived lack of corruption at SEEU relative to other institutions.

SEEU students saw this international focus and the academic quality they associated with it as perhaps the most important aspect of their education. They saw

SEEU as offering a quality of education on par with European or U.S. institutions. The degree is recognized and valued abroad and opens up greater opportunities for them beyond university. As one student said:

This university is more based on international than other universities . . .

compared to other universities in Macedonia, this university is the best that you

can pay for. You will be [happier] here than [at] the state university, for example.

And the opportunities that are here in this university, compared to other

universities, it is very good. After a three-year degree here you can also go

abroad, to go and study.

Other students indicated the SEEU diploma carries more value outside Macedonia, where familial or other networks are more meaningful than the quality of a university education.

One of the students articulated this perspective:

The value of this university is looked at more when you are going abroad. If you

want to go abroad, [it has] a high value. When you are going abroad, or looking for

a job abroad, it is looked at with value. But in Macedonia, it is not really that

valued. Whether you went to school or not, it’s who you know or don’t know, or

182 luck, to get the job. It is not where you study or where you may have studied. Here,

they don’t get the value. Any other place, they will get the value. It is more abroad.

Although SEEU seeks to preserve its trilingual focus so that students are prepared for the job market in Macedonia, many SEEU students are thinking beyond the country for their futures. Balancing these interests remains a challenge to SEEU’s adaptation to the evolving context of Macedonia.

American University in Bulgaria.

AUBG’s connection to the world beyond Eastern Europe was a clear motivation for students to choose Blagoevgrad for their studies. As mentioned previously, the US

Department of State’s Summer Work Travel program seems to be a core part of the co- curriculum at AUBG. As one student noted, “Most of us are connected to the States . . .

Most of us go on the Work Travel program in the summer in the States.” After graduation, the percentage of students who go for grad school in the United States, according to one student, is significant. The United States is not the only eventual destination that AUBG students are contemplating. Western Europe attracts many, too, but for some the lure is simply travel, as one student articulated:

I like to travel, so that was one of the things that motivated me. Also, that AUBG

gives you lots of opportunities to go and study at different universities. It has a lot

of exchanges like Erasmus and ISEP. I’ve already been on Erasmus and now I’m

going on ISEP. It’s just great. The people are so—the people here are different. I

was in France, studying in France, and when I came back it felt like I came back

to my family.

183 Another student followed his sister to AUBG. For him, one of the crucial factors in his choice was that AUBG opens doors for its students by offering a U.S.–, Bulgarian-, and

EU–recognized diploma “three shots in one.” He added:

After you graduate from AUBG you’ve got plenty of doors open if you’re a good

student. Either Europe for grad school or the United States. My sister picked the

United States. I don’t know whether I’ll follow her steps or do something

different with my life. [AUBG] is a portal that opens other portals.

For students who come from elsewhere to study in Bulgaria, the pathway through AUBG often leads back to their home country. But once they return home, they connect with their peers who have similarly studied abroad, most commonly in the United States or

European Union. This shared experience of Western higher education leads to a network of like-minded youth with global aspirations. An AUBG student from the Republic of

Georgia expressed her view on this tendency:

[B]ack home there is a huge diversity and a huge flow of students going not to

Bulgaria. Even here we are 60 Georgians—and there are many more in the States

and many more somewhere else. Pretty much all those guys who go back, they get

together in all the institutions and they start working together. We have this

revolutionary government right now that is gathering all these new people. So I

think you always find someone who is closer to you. That is why we are studying

here. We have to make ourselves comfortable back home among the people we

are going to gather around us. We are the ones who choose. It’s going to be OK.

You don’t go home and become a taxi driver after graduating from AUBG. You

go and do something in your sphere and probably you are going to meet people

184 who are, if they are not as educated as you are, they start respecting you, and if

they are better, then you learn from them.

At the time of the interview, Mikheil Saakashvili was the president of Georgia.

Saakashvili himself was an example of the globally mobile youth, having studied at The

George Washington University Law School and Columbia University, where he earned an L.L.M through the U.S. Department of State’s Edmund Muskie Fellowship.

Promoting Perceptions of Quality, Legitimacy, and Prestige

American University of Central Asia.

The Soviet Union left a legacy of public higher education in the Kyrgyz Republic.

When market reforms were introduced in the transition period, private forms of higher education emerged. Many of these institutions were of low quality or were narrowly focused on professional training, which contributed to public skepticism toward private higher education. The emergence of the Kyrgyz-American School in 1993 as a department within a well-respected state institution distinguished it from the proliferation of commercial education entities during that period. This incubation within the Kyrgyz

National State University conferred a degree of legitimacy upon the American University of Kyrgyzstan (AUK) when it became an independent institution in 1997. Nevertheless,

AUK, which later became AUCA, continually had to contend with a public distrust of private education. For this reason, the emphasis on high standards and quality are a key strategy for adapting to the social reality of the Kyrgyz Republic. As one faculty member stated, “Kyrgyzstan has too many universities and there is a choice for the students where to go . . . [T]o attract students we need to keep higher standards in teaching and everything.” AUCA has largely succeeded in distinguishing itself in the eyes of the

185 public as offering a better education than most, if not all the alternatives, in Kyrgyzstan.

One education development expert in Bishkek said bluntly, “Manas University and

AUCA are the only two true universities in the country.” Manas University, funded largely by the Turkish government, is a similarly “imported” university in Bishkek.

Although Kyrgyzstan does not offer official university rankings, and comparing

AUCA to dissimilar state institutions would be unempirical, it is a widely held perception in the country that AUCA is a high-quality institution. AUCA has maintained its state accreditation throughout its operations. Its reputation for quality is further validated by its partnership with Bard College, which allows AUCA to offer students in most disciplines both a Kyrgyz State diploma and a diploma accredited by the Commission on Higher

Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools. This U.S. diploma, as the recruiting video says, is “just like the one granted at Harvard, Stanford, or

Berkeley.”

South East European University.

At SEEU, quality has become the mantra of the institution as it has sought to change the perception that it is merely the Albanian university in Macedonia. This view was echoed by a faculty member who said, “I think that the students that come here do so in belief that they are going to get a better and more high-quality education than they would elsewhere. Particularly if they are interested in pursuing it in the Albanian language.” This emphasis on quality has gained increased attention in recent years. Once the much-cheaper State University of Tetovo opened a few blocks away, SEEU’s initial focus on providing higher education in Albanian became less urgent and it shifted its strategy to emphasize its superior academic quality compared to Tetovo State and other

186 institutions. Every faculty member, administrator, and student participant in this study highlighted this emphasis on academic quality. One senior administrator articulated what many participants stated:

I think the primary motivation is the recognition that they are going to get a quality

education. Secondly, I think it is, for many of them, the belief that they can pursue

their education in Albanian language. Which you can do at [Tetovo] State

University, but you cannot do at the State University in Skopje. So the difference in

quality between the State University of Tetovo and our university is substantial and

in our favor.

This perspective indicates that there was a shift in strategy as SEEU adapted to a new reality with the legalization of the State University of Tetovo. This strategy is also in part a response to the massification of public higher education—that is, the proliferation of branches of state institutions throughout the country. These institutions are convenient and cheap for students. One faculty member noted this strategy shift:

One of the big things that we’ve started to focus on very heavily is quality. Quality

in higher education because of the competition, and because we want to be

represented as something above sort of the massive public sector higher education.

Quality in terms of teaching, quality in learning, and quality in research.

To compete in this environment as a private institution reliant on tuition that is high by

Macedonian standards, SEEU must appeal to the perception that its academic quality is worth the investment.

The students at SEEU recognized the investment they were making in their education. They described the education their peers were receiving at state institutions as

187 less rigorous and the environment in those institutions as lacking in professionalism. One student provided an example of the gap in professionalism:

One bad thing [at] state universities is that students go there and the professor

didn’t come for the lecture so they miss a lot of lectures and they can’t find

professors in their office. So it’s not like us, because we can find professors every

time in their office and we can consult for everything. They don’t have this thing.

The professionalism of the faculty at SEEU is strongly emphasized and enforced through systems of accountability. Absenteeism is strictly forbidden and monitored through an electronic ID–card system. Faculty members swipe the card at the start of the class to activate the lights and projector in the classroom. The university also has a highly developed system of classroom peer observation and performance reviews to monitor and continually improve academic quality. These organizational investments in quality assurance are not lost on students. One had the opportunity to make a direct comparison with her peers through a course that was open to enrollment by SEEU and Tetovo State students. In her discussions with her classmates from Tetovo State she noted,

One of the things that usually people liked from [SEEU] is the order. There is a

systematic way of things going that is a little bit different from [Tetovo State]. It is

somehow, we have better participation in class, we have better teaching from the

professors.

This student’s perception of SEEU’s quality relative to other institutions in the country was shared by the other participants. It is worth noting that the organization of the university stands alongside teacher quality and academic rigor as something highly valued by the students.

188 SEEU’s efforts to distinguish itself from other institutions in Macedonia received a boost from external rankings that were introduced in the country. Macedonia’s ministry of education and science commissioned the external rankings in 2011 to be conducted by

Shanghai Jiao Tong University, best known for its Academic Ranking of World

Universities. Unlike its world rankings, the methodology used in the Macedonian project placed less emphasis on research output (Brankovic, 2012). Teaching and learning were given a weighting of 42%, followed by research (40%) and social service (18%)

(Brankovic, 2012). Of the 19 institutions ranked, SEEU placed second. Although the administrators and faculty participants said that these results were not very scientific and not to be taken as truth, they nevertheless repeatedly referred to them as a validation of

SEEU’s quality. One senior administrator summed up this view:

I think generally [SEEU] is quite respected. As you probably know, in the recent

Shanghai Jiao Tong rankings we came in number two. That didn’t sit well with

some of the other universities, but that’s the way of the world. I think generally

we are recognized as having a greater commitment to quality and perhaps less

baggage from the past. Which, for example, plagues the main State University in

Skopje—they have some fine academics, but they also have a number of policies

that have been around since 1964 and they are just not evolving in the way that

we can, [we can] evolve much more nimbly and more quickly than they can. I

think that’s the general perception.

Despite stated misgivings about the Shanghai rankings, the institutional self-review touts the results as an accomplishment:

The Shanghai Jiao Tong rankings of Higher Education institutions ranked SEEU

189 second in the entire nation, which represents a significant accomplishment for us,

and reflects highly on our general consistency of academic quality, research

excellence, integrated management, and well-observed quality assurance

mechanisms. (SEEU Self Evaluation Report, 2012, p. 3)

External validation of quality plays into SEEU’s adaptation strategy and bolsters its image as a high-quality, Western-style university untainted by the corruption and outmoded academics at other institutions. Political validation also strengthens the public perception of SEEU’s quality. For example, the university was awarded the Order of

Merit by the President of Macedonia, a prestigious honor “commonly reserved for much older institutions” (SEEU Self Evaluation Report, 2012, p. 4). For a relatively young institution in an academic environment where private higher education had not existed in recent times, these forms of external validation play a crucial role in legitimizing the university in the public’s eyes.

American University in Bulgaria.

Although it is more mature as an institution than AUCA or SEEU, AUBG has also struggled to establish its reputation in Bulgaria. Its commitment to liberal education in a country where this concept was not widespread met with skepticism by other academics. “Because of the liberal-arts style of education,” said one faculty member,

“many of the Bulgarian academics didn’t take us very seriously.” These attitudes still exist, according to many of the faculty interviewed, but AUBG’s reputation has gradually risen in the eyes of the public and other academics.

As with SEEU, AUBG’s reputation has been bolstered in recent years by rankings introduced by the Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science (Ministry of Education

190 and Science, 2014). AUBG consistently ranks among the top three universities across most disciplines that it offers. The rankings use a standardized weighting of the factors to compare 51 institutions. The rankings system, first introduced in 2010, uses more than 70 indicators grouped under six categories in its methodology. The six categories include teaching and learning, science and research, teaching and learning environment, welfare and administrative services, prestige, and career and relevance to the labor market

(Ministry of Education and Science, 2014). In the 2013 standardized rankings, AUBG ranked first in administration and management, first in economics, second in informatics and computer science, second in political science, and first in public communications and informatics (Ministry of Education and Science, 2014). Although the majors at AUBG do not always align with those used in the Ministry’s rankings, the results in these categories encapsulate most of the disciplines at AUBG. As with any ranking, these results are viewed with some skepticism; nevertheless, this external validation of the quality of

AUBG has to some degree quieted the condescending attitudes that were prevalent before. Nearly all of the AUBG faculty, students, and administrators in this study referred to the rankings with pride and a sense of vindication toward their patronizing colleagues at other universities. One faculty member summed up the perspective shared by many:

And we ranked second after Sofia University on most of the points. And it was

sort of—this was heard by the society. And I think that even though there are still

a lot of skeptics, other people are starting to think, well, maybe they are offering

good education after all, seeing so many students go and then they do very well

after that. And so this, on top of the fact that we continue to do our jobs as faculty

diligently, while the Bulgarian system keeps deteriorating. So the attitudes are

191 changing. And so now, I hear very often, mostly from ordinary people, not from

academics, that you’re the best university in Bulgaria, aren’t you?

This external validation of quality has contributed to the university’s ability to attract many of the top students in the region.

AUBG’s reputation for quality extends beyond Bulgaria, which provides less than half of the university’s enrollment. In its recruitment strategy, AUBG’s response to enrollment challenges was twofold: an eastward shift and a greater focus on non-EU countries in the Balkans, such as Albania and Macedonia. Recruitment efforts focused increasingly on Russia, Central Asia, Georgia, and other former republics of the Soviet

Union. One student from the Kyrgyz Republic, himself a product of this shift, recalled the efforts made to attract students from the former Soviet republics:

I think they’ve started to look eastward more, to post-Soviet countries. There is a

trend that a lot of Russian-speaking students are coming here. The community of

Russian speakers increased really fast. I know that the former president, Mr.

Huwiler, he personally came several times each year to Kyrgyzstan. He visited

some high schools and encouraged those guys to come here. So they are sending

representatives of the university to the post-Soviet countries to get good high-

level students here.

President Huwiler’s connections to Central Asia, where he had previously served as president of AUCA, proved fortuitous for recruitment efforts. His personal commitment to this process can be seen in his direct participation in recruitment in the region. Russian became the third-most commonly heard language on campus, after English and

Bulgarian. Scholarship funding from OSI also allowed AUBG to attract students from the

192 former Soviet Union. This combination of international cachet and quality at a lower cost than traveling to the United States has proved to be attractive to prospective students.

This eastward shift was not without contention, however. At the time, many voiced concerns that AUBG was not sufficiently focused on serving Bulgarian students.

Appealing to the pragmatic and status-conscious student

American University of Central Asia.

AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG have emphasized academic quality in an effort to establish legitimacy. Closely tied to their academic reputation is the perception that these institutions confer some level of status on their students and alumni. The universities have invested in what one participant in this study called “curb appeal” that distinguishes them from other institutions. The association of status with these universities often brings with it a perception of elitism among the public that seemed to create some ambivalence in the participants in this study. As relatively expensive private institutions in countries undergoing economic difficulties, this perceived elitism can lead to resentment in academic circles or among a public that sees these institutions as inaccessible to them.

AUCA made a major investment in its curb appeal with its construction of a new campus in the suburbs of Bishkek. Since becoming an independent university, AUCA had occupied a historic building in the center of Bishkek, a former Communist Party headquarters. The new campus was many years in the making and its completion was delayed numerous times. At the time of my site visit, the building was under construction, but already administrators were looking to take advantage of the new campus in recruiting efforts, particularly for attracting prospects from beyond

Kyrgyzstan. One administrator made this clear, saying that the new campus will be a “big

193 draw.” He added, “The type of facility that you have is a big factor in your ability to attract people from outside the country.” The grand opening of AUCA’s new campus took place October 31, 2015. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry took part in the gala opening. Other honored guests, representing the university’s international and local support, included the minister of education of Kyrgyzstan, a vice president from Bard

College, a trustee of the Open Society Foundations, and the deputy head of the presidential administration of Kyrgyzstan. The campus is touted as the “first private construction project that is clean green” with a geothermal heating system and state-of- the art systems to provide energy efficiency (AUCA website, 2015). Its striking contemporary architecture conveys the message that AUCA stands out among universities in the country.

The glittering new campus inevitably will reinforce perceptions about elitism. At

AUCA, the students spoke frankly about this public perception of elitism. Many people believe “we are just children of rich parents,” said one student, adding, “[P]artially that is true.” The other students in the focus group laughed at this comment and pointed out the expensive cars parked out in front of the main building. According to one administrator, it is clear in the statements of purpose that applicants submit to AUCA that attending

AUCA “is a prestige thing for them.”

Faculty and administrators at AUCA expressed some frustration about the perceptions of elitism. On the one hand, they want to be perceived as having the highest- quality academics and being elite in that regard. On the other hand, they did not want their elitism to be based on the money that their students have. They make every effort to counter this perception by emphasizing the high percentage of students who receive some

194 form of financial aid. One faculty member expressed this ambivalence, describing AUCA as “one of the more prestigious institutions,” then adding, “Unfortunately, I think recently it has also become the most expensive university and so the richest kids also go here.”

The status of attending AUCA—or having your child attend— seems firmly embedded in the Kyrgyz public.

All three institutions in this study have grown increasingly dependent on tuition as government and agency support has waned. This reality has made them highly attuned to their market so that they can sustain enrollments. In addition, they have become more entrepreneurial in seeking to diversify their institutional revenue. At AUCA, discussions with administrators made it clear that they do not expect funding from USAID and OSI to remain at its current levels for long. Although the endowment established by USAID and

OSI provides financial security well into the future, the universities have made a conscious effort to identify other potential donors. AUCA has had some success developing relationships with local donors. According to one administrator, local businesses committed more than $50,000 in scholarship funds during the 2013–14 academic year. Significant support has also come from the Mina Corporation for

AUCA’s New Generation Academy (NGA), a pre-baccalaureate preparation program for students from outside the capital of Kyrgyzstan. Mina Corp., which has profited from supplying jet fuel for the U.S. air base at Manas, provided start-up funding of $2.5 million to launch NGA in 2012 (AUCA News, 2011, June 8). The New Generation

Academy itself is an adaptation strategy to support student enrollments and maintain quality at AUCA. As secondary education has deteriorated in the country, fewer students from less affluent parts of the country have been able to meet AUCA’s admissions

195 requirements. The NGA provides intensive English and math training that improves potential applicants’ chances of gaining admission.

The economic situation in the Kyrgyz Republic has resulted in new financial-aid strategies. AUCA began experimenting with deferred-payment plans for students in 2012.

Eligible students receive $1,000 in deferred payments, which they later pay back to

AUCA with 0% interest, according to one administrator. AUCA also reached an agreement with the microfinance company Kiva to formalize its deferred payment process.

AUCA’s Continuing Education Center has also contributed to the university’s entrepreneurial efforts. As a self-support unit within the university, the center has been successful in securing funding to provide training programs to a range of clients. One ongoing project at the center is a military retraining project funded by NATO. These market-based training programs contribute a percentage of funds to the main university budget, but certainly not in amounts that significantly bolster AUCA’s financial sustainability.

South East European University.

The physical appearance of SEEU, or curb appeal, reinforces its reputation as a higher- quality, European-standard institution. One student indicated the campus environment was a primary motivating factor for many to come to SEEU. He described the campus as “something that was different, unique,” contributing to an overall positive environment for students. Faculty members and administrators frequently pointed out the green, modern campus, prominently situated near the entrance to Tetovo from the main highway from Skopje. The physical design of the campus reflects how the university

196 hopes to be perceived. As one faculty member noted,

There is a certain respect, or there is a perception, [in which] there is an

investment from internationals, so probably they will not produce crap. Probably

somebody is controlling something . . . We are like an oasis in this place. Not just

the education, but I’m sure you have walked through Tetovo. It’s filthy. But the

campus is very clean and very neat and people behave differently here just

because of its international orientation.

The physical space of the campus, designed and built with funding from the international community, embodies the image of SEEU that distinguishes it from higher-education institutions in Macedonia. The cultivation of this image is a key adaptation strategy of the university.

Another key aspect of SEEU’s curb appeal in its efforts to attract and retain students was the establishment of a campus in the capital, Skopje. SEEU has struggled to attract ethnic Macedonian students, since it is known as an Albanian-language institution and is located in an Albanian city. The Skopje branch is seen as a way to attract ethnic-

Macedonian students to SEEU. The university is prepared to devote considerable resources to expanding its Skopje campus. According to one official, the university is in negotiations to relocate to a much larger space in Skopje. Although the board delayed this process due to the financial crisis, this remains a component of SEEU’s strategic plan.

The Skopje branch underscores the university’s goal of being perceived not merely as an ethnic Albanian university, but as a national—or international— university. One faculty member articulated this point:

We can no longer simply say, as we could in the very beginning, we are an

197 international institution and therefore we are bringing all the benefits of western

education here. We are now an evolving university with a very specific location,

that is Tetovo, but we’ve also got a Skopje branch.

The Skopje branch raises the profile of SEEU in the country. Based only in Tetovo, the university could be seen as peripheral or focused only on the Albanian community.

According to one faculty member, SEEU’s “potential as a player in the social life in the country without the Skopje campus would be far, far, far more negligible.” With a continual and growing presence in Skopje, however, SEEU can play a more central role in the intellectual life of the country.

The economic difficulties in Macedonia have similarly made SEEU adjust to the needs of potential students. Students, and their parents, are focused on post-university employment, particularly if they are investing in a relatively expensive private university.

Several administrators and faculty discussed the challenge of maintaining high-quality educational values in their curriculum while also being market-oriented. One administrator expressed exasperation with this process, stating, “[T]hat’s a real difficulty here just because there is almost no infrastructure, there [are] almost no factories, no manufacturing . . . [W]hen people leave our university, they can be brilliant people, but they can’t find jobs.” The university’s responsibility, according to this administrator, is

“trying to make sure that we create market-oriented degrees that help people, that really give them a positive advantage in life.” SEEU’s self-evaluation study from 2012 underscores this effort to recalibrate its curriculum to focus on employability. The study indicates that SEEU “undertook an extensive curricula revision” to ensure that SEEU

“now offers more finely tuned programs, with particular focus on producing employable

198 graduates with skills specific to their chosen professions” (p. 3). Given the continuing economic challenges in the country, many of the professions will likely be outside of

Macedonia.

SEEU has pursued entrepreneurial activities that strengthen ties with the local business community. Entrepreneurial activity is indicated as a strategic direction for the university in its strategic plan. “Earnings from the University’s entrepreneurial activities,” the strategy indicates, “need to become a significant part of the University’s income finance structure” (SEEU Strategic Plan, 2012). SEEU created the Business

Development Center (BDC) to spearhead these entrepreneurial activities. The BDC develops business links with local companies, providing consulting and training services.

The BDC also seeks grant opportunities. One example of a project was a grant awarded in 2012 by the ministry of the economy to provide training to its employees.

American University in Bulgaria.

When Bulgaria joined the European Union, it became just another EU country, so it was harder to attract faculty and students. It is a “different game” now that Bulgaria is in the European Union. AUBG must compete not only on academic excellence but also in perceptions of the institution. For this reason, the curb appeal of the new buildings and their location in the heart of Blagoevgrad is important for the institution’s sustainability and competitiveness in attracting students and faculty. AUBG needs to stand out from the surrounding community of Blagoevgrad, argued one administrator, so that people will view it as an elite, special place. “Even the grass is greener on the AUBG campus,” he pointed out, adding:

199 The grounds are well kept, flower beds are tended. Residents of the city take

walks through campus and see that it is something very contemporary and exudes

an aura of success and affluence.

AUBG has invested considerable amounts of funding to maintain its curb appeal. With significant support from the America for Bulgaria Foundation, it opened a state-of-the-art student center in October 2012 that was subsequently recognized with a Building of the

Year award in Bulgaria. AUBG has gradually built a campus that resembles a residential university more common to U.S. higher education than Europe. Its Skaptopara residence halls, Balkanskii Academic Building, and student center stretch along the Bistritsa River, providing a striking contrast with the surrounding housing blocks in Blagoevgrad. This effort to distinguish the campus with a contemporary look was a conscious undertaking, according to senior administrators. In order to attract students from Bulgaria and beyond to Blagoevgrad, the campus environment must underscore that AUBG offers something unique. Its virtual tour and recruitment videos on the AUBG website highlight the facilities. The campus resembles a “typical American liberal-arts university picked up and teleported to the heart of New Europe” according to the virtual tour guide.

The trade-off for this curb appeal is increased pressure on enrollment and tuition.

Student participants readily noted this strategy—and the amount of their tuition money going to infrastructure. “The university is investing in the new dormitory building, now they’re investing in the new student center,” said one student who expressed concern about how the university will cover the cost of these investments. Another student shared these concerns: “They are hoping that this building and the physical structure, as soon as it becomes more American, will attract more students.” This student worried that as

200 AUBG grows more expensive, more students will simply opt to study elsewhere in the

European Union. She expressed her concern:

The problem is that if you have the money . . . The girl I was working with this

summer, she’s studying in the UK and she’s paying the same tuition, like I don’t

have a scholarship and her scholarship covers half her tuition so she’s paying less

studying at a good university—Manchester University in the UK—and it has a

name. If you say you’re studying in the UK it means one thing, if you have a

degree from Bulgarian university . . . it’s completely different.

AUBG’s investment in its campus is part of its strategy to be perceived not as a Bulgarian university, as this student says, but as an international university following the U.S. liberal-arts model.

The first classes of students at AUBG were described as activists and risk-takers, willing to become a part of a brand new university that epitomized everything that communist Bulgaria was not. For the entering classes today, the Communist period is not something they directly experienced, merely a lesson from history class. I heard repeatedly from study participants that there is a growing pragmatism among students.

One faculty member’s comments reflected what many said:

The student body has changed and evolved, as have the desires of the students of

the region. I don’t know if you know this, but the majority of our students—and I

can’t give you an exact number—are business majors. We are struggling to

remain a liberal-arts institution so that—I mean you see it a fair amount in the

U.S., as well. But hey, yes, it’s become significantly less about your education

and more about the job after graduation.

201 The initial classes at AUBG were more mature. Many had studied at other universities before coming to AUBG when it opened, and many had completed mandatory military service. Their mindset was different, according to most of the faculty and administrators in this study. As one faculty member said, the first classes were “more idealistic.” He lamented that this idealism “has been largely lost,” and concluded, “I think now maybe the main motivation for most of the students is our reputation, that it’s a good step towards a good career.” Ironically, several of the students who took part in this study echoed concerns that liberal education was less important to their counterparts, expressing worry that AUBG was “turning into a business school.”

Indeed, students, faculty, and staff alike noted a shift to an increasingly instrumentalist view of education among the new generation at AUBG. The university has a track record of graduates finding well-paying jobs. The ranking of Bulgarian universities conducted by the ministry of education and science was weighted heavily for employability, and AUBG’s strong placing in the rankings reinforced its image as a stepping-stone to prosperity. Self-selection seems to at least partly explain this; as one faculty member pointed out, “I would say [AUBG students today] are more individualistic, and I don’t think that’s necessarily because that’s what they learn at

AUBG but I’d say it’s more the kinds of students that AUBG admits . . . They were already ambitious, driven, clever.” The environment at AUBG encourages students to be involved in extracurricular activities and to focus on developing soft skills. “We’re very good at teaching our students how to present themselves well to the outside world,” commented one faculty member. He continued, “[H]ow to express themselves, to have communicative skills, to make a presentation, to write a CV . . . And so they excel in this,

202 and they are very successful after [graduation].” AUBG reported that its survey of parents resulted in data supporting this shift to a more pragmatic view of education. The results showed that parents’ perceptions of liberal education were “not as clear” as was hoped by the AUBG leadership, but “the overall image of AUBG [was] one of quality and better career opportunities for its graduates” (AUBG, 2011, p. 13). For most parents of college students, the employability of their children is the foremost concern.

The high level of English proficiency demanded of AUBG students also contributes to their desirability to employers upon graduation. AUBG students are particularly attractive to companies with a global outlook, a fact that prompted one faculty member to comment that AUBG had “basically . . . become a training ground for multinational corporations.” For a student, and parents, considering which university to attend, a job with a multinational corporation upon graduation is by no means a reason for handwringing. For the faculty, students, and administrators who are strongly committed to the liberal education mission of AUBG and the values it implies—good citizenship, concern not just for oneself but for the betterment of society—the elevation of material success above all else brings a sense of disappointment.

Summary

In this chapter, I have presented the main themes that emerged from the data I collected from interviews, focus groups, and documents. First, I presented data demonstrating the global, national, and local influences on the universities’ development.

Then I showed the role of institutional mission and values. Lastly, I outlined some of the strategies used by the universities to adapt to their changing circumstances. The results reveal three institutions that were established during a time of significant uncertainty and

203 yet managed to adapt to their environments to become highly regarded universities in their respective countries.

Since the founding of SEEU and AUBG, international actors have played a role in supporting and shaping these institutions’ development. AUCA, initially a local project, subsequently saw significant involvement by global actors as it became an autonomous university. The role of the international community has not been deterministic, however, as can be seen in the differences between these three institutions. The universities became points of contact and interchange between global agendas and local interests.

International partnerships and exchanges, so integral to the identities of AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG, strengthened their connections with global higher-education actors, while promoting a multidirectional flow of ideas and expertise.

Each university contended with national contexts that shared some similarities but also significant differences. AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG have maintained their local accreditation and legal status throughout their existence. Their relationship with local authorities has been complex. This relationship has at times seemed to threaten the survival of the institutions, but more often it has revealed a tolerance or grudging acceptance on the part of authorities and only rarely outright hostility. The presence of these institutions, at very little financial cost to the national governments, allows political authorities to illustrate their liberality when its serves their purposes. At the individual level, students seeking to become part of a globally mobile youth have an outlet for their ambitions without leaving their home country. This is particularly the case in Bishkek, where local Kyrgyz students might otherwise feel isolated from global opportunities, but it is also true in Tetovo and Blagoevgrad. AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG are attuned to the

204 sociopolitical environment in their respective countries and recognize how dependent they are on student enrollments from their home countries. Even AUBG, with its diverse student population, would struggle to survive if its Bulgraian enrollment were to fall dramatically. At this point in their development, despite varying levels of maturity,

AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG still depend very much on a working relationship with local authorities. What bodes well for the future of these universities is that this relationship appears to be mutually beneficial.

The adaptation strategies employed by AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG have some core elements in common, but they differ in their points of emphasis depending on their national contexts. All three universities now seem firmly established as a part of the higher education systems in their countries. These systems have evolved from exclusively public higher education during the Socialist era, to mixed systems with some private institutions permitted by law. AUCA is generally regarded as one of the top two universities in Kyrgyzstan. The poor economic situation in Kyrgyzstan, however, means

AUCA cannot rely on tuition revenues alone to sustain its operations. As a result, AUCA relies more on government and nonprofit donors, mainly USAID and OSI, and is dependent on its Bard College partnership (facilitated by OSI) for its U.S. accreditation.

SEEU has come to rely on tuition revenue as financial support from its U.S. and

EU founders has lessened. The tough economic situation and proliferation of cheap competition in Macedonia has made meeting enrollment targets challenging for SEEU.

SEEU also faces the paradox that as Macedonia becomes more integrated into the

European Union—an objective of SEEU’s founders—students will have greater opportunities to seek higher education elsewhere in the European Union. Moreover, it is

205 also possible that, with greater EU integration, demand for higher education in the

Albanian language may become less urgent for the students who opt to enroll at SEEU rather than at the cheaper State University of Tetovo.

AUBG, the oldest of the three institutions, achieved independent U.S. accreditation a decade into its operations and has transitioned away from heavy dependence on USAID funding; it now relies on tuition revenues and its endowment for its operations. It is the most truly international of the three institutions, with slightly less than half of its students from Bulgaria. The competitive market for students who have many higher education options in AUBG’s price range poses a test for AUBG’s commitment to liberal education, however. Many status-conscious students and parents are attracted more by the prestige that attending AUBG brings than by a broad-based liberal education. To attract this type of student, therefore, the university must continue to invest in expensive facilities that convey an aura of success, siphoning resources away from academics. I discuss and interpret these results further in Chapter V.

206 Chapter V: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

This study focuses on how a foreign model of higher education is adapted within different national contexts. In the previous chapter, I presented the data from the interviews and focus groups conducted during my site visits to the American University of Central Asia, Southeast European University, and the American University in

Bulgaria. In this chapter, I analyze the patterns that emerged from the data, present my interpretation of the data, and go beyond the data to discuss implications of the study. I have organized this chapter thematically. I first address the question of legitimacy for private higher education and how these universities, as private (AUCA and AUBG) or quasi-private (SEEU) nonprofit institutions established legitimacy, linking this theme with the theory of policy/model transfer. Second, I evaluate the evolution of funding for these institutions as they moved from primarily external donor funding to tuition dependency, connecting their change to broader currents in foreign policy and development aid in the region. Third, I examine the role of the institutional mission and values in the adaptation process. Last, I discuss how AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG negotiated a balance between the local and global that allowed them to function as universities. As I discuss these four thematic areas, I draw comparisons between the three universities studied and connect these discussions with the literature presented in Chapter

II. I conclude by outlining the limitations of this study and suggest potential areas of inquiry that might expand upon and enrich the research presented here.

Establishing Legitimacy and Finding Acceptance

AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG were, as one administrator at AUBG said about her institution, “odd animals” in their respective higher-education systems. AUBG was from

207 the start a private university, based on the private nonprofit model common in the United

States. AUCA, after an initial period as a school within a state university, became an independent university that was also based on a private, nonprofit model. When SEEU was established, Macedonian law established a separate category of institution called

“public-private” that allows SEEU to operate legally, although for all intents and purposes, SEEU has followed the private nonprofit model like AUCA and AUBG. What were prospective students, parents, and higher education authorities to make of these odd animals?

In the post–Cold War period, private institutions throughout the former Eastern bloc were faced with the challenge of establishing their legitimacy in national systems that for decades did not recognize private alternatives to state higher education. AUCA,

SEEU, and AUBG similarly had to negotiate this question of legitimacy in the eyes of the public and the education authorities in their respective countries. Unfortunately, the proliferation of private institutions that occurred in the former Eastern bloc following

1991 was almost exclusively private for-profit institutions, many of them owned by a single proprietor and run like a business. They tended to focus on narrow, high-demand niches, such as information technologies, business, or foreign languages (Levy, 2007).

AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG therefore faced the additional challenge of somehow differentiating themselves as nonprofit universities from for-profit institutions that often were rightly dismissed as low quality pseudo-universities. How AUCA, SEEU, and

AUBG negotiated the question of legitimacy offers some valuable insights for imported university models and the theory of policy/model borrowing.

208 In countries with a legacy of public higher education, the primary source of legitimacy is the state. Thus, private institutions first seek out legitimacy through state acceptance. Nevertheless, even if higher education fits within the legal framework of a country, the public generally perceives it as less accountable to government than state institutions. In response, private institutions look for alternative sources of legitimacy.

One alternative source of legitimacy has historically been foreign—primarily U.S. or western European—models of higher education (Slantcheva, 2007). Thus, just as AUCA,

SEEU, and AUBG relied on the international community for financial support in their early years, they also benefited from their international backers as a source of legitimacy.

The public perception of AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG being based on foreign models of higher education that had the support of international institutions and authorities lent them legitimacy from the beginning. So, in a way, these institutions had a head- start over other private institutions by virtue of how they were established. Nevertheless, this process called for a balancing between the international partners and national authorities as each institution sought to establish itself on sustainable footing within its national system of higher education.

Unlike AUBG and SEEU, which were started as independent universities, AUCA began as a department or school within a state university. In Kyrgyzstan, the line between public and private institutions was not clearly demarcated, since higher-education reforms following independence allowed state universities to create separate divisions or institutions that acted as private entities (DeYoung, 2011). The Kyrgyz-American School

(KAS), as it was known, was one of these entities, housed within the flagship public institution, Kyrgyz National State University. As a division of the main state university,

209 KAS was able to offer state-sanctioned diplomas. This incubation period allowed KAS to establish itself as reputable among students and parents. The constraints of remaining within a state university prevented it from pursuing a distinctive mission, however, so its leadership sought the means to become an independent university. The financial means were provided primarily by the U.S. government and OSI, allowing the independent

American University of Kyrgyzstan (AUK) to be born. AUK, as the continuation of the

Kyrgyz-American School, was still licensed to offer state-sanctioned diplomas to its graduates. Its reputation for quality and its official recognition by the ministry of education and science therefore allowed the newly formed university to retain its mantle of legitimacy in the eyes of the public. It also had a core of local faculty members and administrators strongly connected with higher education networks within the country. Its close affiliation with the U.S. government and visible support from the U.S. embassy in

Bishkek further bolstered AUCA’s legitimacy in the public’s eyes. In fact, this association of AUCA with U.S. government institutions proved crucial. At a time of deep-seated corruption in the country, first during the Akaev administration and later under Bakiev, the Kyrgyz citizenry’s trust in state institutions eroded. Public higher education was seen as especially corrupt. Stories of grade- buying, fraudulent diplomas, indifferent and unprofessional instructors, and greedy administrators became commonplace. Private higher education was also distrusted. Owners of private universities became comparatively wealthy, feeding perceptions of fiscal accountability and transparency issues (DeYoung, 2011). AUCA was fortunate to have the legitimacy of state-sanctioned diploma, yet it also had the distance from public higher education accorded by its private nonprofit status and association with the U.S. government and

210 international community. This status also distanced AUCA, to some extent, from other private institutions that were perceived as corrupt or profit-oriented.

The perception of SEEU as a project with the full backing of the international community proved a strong source of legitimacy for this new form of institution. SEEU, as is implied by its name, was established as a European university. It was brought into the legal framework of higher education in Macedonia through negotiations between its international founders and the Macedonian government. Thus, from its opening, it was able to grant Macedonian state-sanctioned diplomas. Yet its close association with the international community distinguished SEEU from other universities in the country. Like

AUCA, thanks to its association with international sponsors, SEEU was seen as untainted, or at least less tainted, by the corruption that plagued state institutions. As the students I met with emphasized, SEEU instructors were held to a higher level of professionalism, and grades were earned, not bought, at SEEU. Although it may have initially been viewed as the university created for ethnic Albanians, it differed from other institutions formed in the former Yugoslavia to serve a specific ethnic group. SEEU became known as Macedonia’s Europeanized—and Europeanizing—university (Bacevic,

2014). Its colloquial name on the streets of Tetovo and Skopje—the decidedly foreign sounding “Stoel”—underscores its Europeanness (that is, western Europeanness).

AUBG similarly benefited from foreign sources of legitimacy from its beginning.

The active role played by the U.S. embassy in establishing AUBG, the mentoring role of the University of Maine, the active involvement of George Soros, and the expatriate leadership inspired confidence that AUBG was a legitimate alternative to public higher education in Bulgaria. The visible presence of U.S. expatriate faculty members, roughly

211 one-third of all faculty, also underscored the identity and mission of AUBG and further distinguished it from other institutions in Bulgaria. During the early years of transition,

Bulgarian leaders welcomed AUBG, and the university was among the first three private institutions recognized in 1991 by the Bulgarian legislature (Boyadjieva & Slantcheva,

2007). Nevertheless, a crucial element of AUBG’s legitimacy was its U.S. accreditation.

Through its partnership with the University of Maine, AUBG was able to confer U.S.– accredited diplomas upon its first class of graduates in 1995. Thus, from the beginning,

AUBG graduates have earned both Bulgarian and U.S. diplomas. Accreditation through the University of Maine was a temporary measure and vulnerable to local political pressures in Maine, where the use of state taxpayer dollars to support a distant educational development project was increasingly questioned (Young, 1997). Therefore,

AUBG expended considerable efforts on obtaining full independent accreditation from the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, which it achieved in March 2001.

The national higher-education contexts in which AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG sought to establish themselves were changing. In the early transition years, the liberalization of rules governing higher education allowed a competitive higher-education market to emerge. A growing public acceptance of private higher education points to another alternative source of legitimacy for private universities: the higher-education market (Levy, 2007; Slantcheva, 2007). In a competitive environment, the market becomes the barometer of an institution’s reputation, perceived value, and, by proxy, quality. Market demand for an institution is linked closely with notions of status and prestige associated with a university. AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG all enjoy a degree of prestige among their prospective students, a theme that was mentioned frequently by

212 students and faculty at each university. Each of the institutions focused on curb appeal as a deliberate recruitment strategy. The strikingly contemporary new AUCA campus, the orderliness at SEEU, and the sleek America for Bulgaria Student Center at AUBG all contribute to the perception that these are prestigious institutions. As one AUBG administrator said, they convey an “aura of success.” Their selectivity and tuition level reinforce this perception. Students at AUBG were unequivocal in saying that they believed they were studying at the best university in the country, if not the region.

Status and having an aura of success were not the only contributors to the universities’ market legitimacy. To some extent, the first enrollees at these universities, described as risk- takers and unconventional thinkers and several of whom when on to high-profile careers, contributed to this aura. In part, the status of these universities was supported by the success each has had in the employability of their students. The focus on student employability was high at each of the universities. Perhaps in part the emphasis on employability was due to the continuing financial crisis of 2008 and its impact on the economies of Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, and Bulgaria. Unemployment rates in Macedonia, for example, were more than 30% in 2012–13 (World Bank, 2015). The recruitment materials of AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG highlight employment outcomes prominently as a reason to choose them over their competitors. AUCA and AUBG have been particularly sensitive to concerns that their liberal-arts curriculum does not prepare students for specific careers. In fact, AUBG’s highest strategic academic priority indicated in its 2009 strategic plan was linking liberal education to careers (American University in Bulgaria,

2009). In addition to emphasizing practical elements in its curriculum, AUBG encourages hands-on experience. AUBG students’ high participation rates in the U.S. Summer Work

213 Travel program provides workplace experience valued by potential employers, which is one reason the university actively promotes this program. (Another reason is that the program generates income for students to pay for tuition and living expenses at AUBG).

AUCA has placed increasing emphasis on internships for students, often with the support of external sponsors. SEEU has actively cultivated relationships with local companies to sponsor the education of current or prospective employees and establish career pathways.

AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG have adapted to the growing pragmatism of students and parents and invest considerable effort in underscoring the employability of their students.

In Bulgaria and Macedonia, rankings have confirmed AUBG and SEEU’s success in this area. The status of an institution, its ranking, and its reputation are widely perceived to influence hiring decisions by employers (Hazelkorn, 2011). For this reason, the employability of graduates has resonance among prospective students in a region that has struggled economically.

AUBG, SEEU, and AUCA tout the results of university rankings in their marketing materials. Rankings are closely related to market legitimacy, serving in essence as a consumer’s guide to the higher education market. For SEEU, ranking second among 19 universities in Macedonia was a point of pride and a key talking point in their student-recruitment approach. Similarly, at AUBG, which ranked second in most disciplines in the Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science rankings and first in employability and alumni incomes, these results were seen as external validation of the quality and prestige of AUBG (Novinite.com, 2010). Rankings are a new phenomenon in the Kyrgyz Republic, which is included in the Quacquarelli Symonds regional ranking for Emerging Europe and Central Asia (QS, 2016). AUCA ranked 101 in the region in

214 2015. More importantly, it was the only institution from the Kyrgyz Republic to appear in the rankings, a recognition that it used in its marketing efforts as an external indicator of quality and prestige. Success in graduate employability, not surprisingly, was a key factor in all of these rankings.

A final element of legitimacy, relating to status, is the international image of these universities. The “internationalness” of AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG sets them apart from their local counterparts. For this reason, the presence of expatriate faculty is valued by students, who see in this an indicator of quality and differentiation from local universities. At AUCA, students expressed the desire that all staff be required to have overseas—preferably U.S.—experience so that they can better embody the spirit of the institution. At SEEU, faculty with credentials and experience from universities outside the former Yugoslavia were valued. Bard College diplomas offered at AUCA , SEEU’s accreditation by the Turkish Ministry of Education (YOK) and its affiliation with the

European University Association, and U.S. accreditation at AUBG lend greater legitimacy to these institutions as entities that are foreign and therefore more modern and less corrupt than their local counterparts. They all benefit from the perception, echoed by student participants in this study, that state universities in their respective countries offer an outmoded form of higher education. The education offered by AUCA, SEEU, and

AUBG, if one is to believe their marketing literature, is the education of the future.

Despite this focus on foreign sources of legitimacy, each of these institutions has always recognized the need for the traditional source of legitimacy in countries with a legacy of public higher education: the state. Although it has been challenging, AUCA, SEEU, and

AUBG have worked diligently with local authorities to ensure that they retain national

215 accreditation. Without the continued support of the national higher-education authorities, these universities would not exist today. Thus, balancing their international differentiation with requirements for local legitimacy has been a key factor in their sustainability.

This process for establishing legitimacy—from the international community’s endorsement of quality at the founding of these universities, to the status that they now enjoy in the market and their validation from rankings—parallels in some ways the stages of policy borrowing presented by Phillips and Ochs (2003) and discussed by Steiner-

Khamsi (2004b) and King (2010). According to Phillips & Ochs, a model is initially borrowed because of cross-national attraction, often emerging from political change. In the transition period, truly a time of political change and crisis, former Eastern-bloc countries were open to introducing western models into their higher education system.

One of the “global templates” that they adopted was permitting a mixed system of public and private higher education (King, 2009). AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG received support from local authorities, who saw value in having an alternative model of education. The authorities allowed AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG to grant state diplomas, an action that correlates to Stage Two in the Phillips & Ochs framework of model borrowing.

Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, and Bulgaria established the legal framework that allowed these three universities, as well as other private institutions, to operate. In each country, the state contributed directly to the founding of the universities and continued to support their operation.

In Stage Three of the Phillips & Ochs cycle—the implementation phase—the university models adapt to the national context. In all three instances, AUCA, SEEU, and

216 AUBG for the most part did not encounter active resistance to their operations in

Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, and Bulgaria, respectively. To be sure, according to participants in this study, they met varying degrees of suspicion and political opposition from factions within their respective governments. At AUCA, threats to withhold or delay national accreditation seemed to be a common occurrence, but these threats ultimately did not affect its continuous operation. AUBG and AUCA were nonetheless convenient symbols for expressions of anti-American sentiment. They also factored in political maneuvering related to the real estate that they had been provided by their governments. Otherwise, their position within the national higher-education system was not substantially called into doubt. What emerges from the data is that this adaptation process is as much about the national systems adapting to having universities like AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG as part of their higher-education landscape as it is about the universities adapting to the national system. This dynamic relationship between the universities and their national systems shows policy/model borrowing at the institutional level (Steiner-Khamsi, 2004).

This relationship continues into Stage Four of the Phillips & Ochs policy- borrowing cycle. In this final stage, institutions undergo internalization and indigenization within the national system. Despite their incongruity as private nonprofit institutions, AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG have been accepted as participants in their national systems of higher education. The extent to which they have been internalized or indigenized is grounds for debate. At AUCA and AUBG, in particular, participants in this study expressed that there remains some resistance to conforming to rules and expectations from local officials that might undermine their mission as universities. In fact, becoming too much like the local institutions would detract from their goal of

217 offering an alternative form of higher education. Although they do not intend to isolate themselves from their national systems of higher education, the continuing active influence and financial support of global actors allows them to stand apart and resist conforming entirely to the expectations set forth by education officials. For AUCA, this process seems contentious at times, and the university seems to struggle with integration into the Kyrgyz higher-education system. Administrators voiced their frustrations with this process openly in local media (Benlian, 2013). AUCA is grudgingly tolerated by authorities, but it is still seen as a foreign project. SEEU seems to have moved further down the pathway to being indigenized, as it has been integrated into the higher- education system to a greater extent. SEEU seems to keep one foot in Europe, however, acting as a bridge for Macedonian higher education to the European Higher Education

Area. Evidence at each institution, SEEU included, seems to indicate that they are resistant to being indigenized in the full sense of this term, as this would undermine their foreign identity, a key source of legitimacy, not to mention a marketing edge for them.

This discussion of how AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG have established legitimacy has implications for transnational higher education. When first established, AUCA,

SEEU, and AUBG were new and unusual institutions in the national higher-education system. Their external source of legitimacy played a crucial role, particularly in the early years of the institutions. As the national systems of higher education developed in

Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, and Bulgaria, becoming mixed systems with a greater diversity in the provision of higher education, the universities have faced increasing competition.

The form of competition varies by country and region, and each university has adapted in its own way to its context. AUBG, which attracts more than half of its students from

218 outside of Bulgaria, faces competition with other Western- style institutions in Europe,

Asia, and the Middle East. Students with the means to pay AUBG tuition and willingness to travel have a growing number of choices. For this reason, the legitimacy that AUBG has from its EU and U.S. accreditation is crucial. External validation through rankings and alumni success stories further enhance its competitiveness. Within Bulgaria, AUBG can compete with other institutions, largely thanks to scholarships and student earnings from the Summer Work Travel program. SEEU is not actively competing against AUBG or other universities at that level and price. Its focus is primarily on Macedonia and ethnic-Albanian communities in neighboring countries. SEEU also seeks to attract students from the Albanian diaspora throughout Europe. Its Macedonian and Turkish accreditation and membership in the European University Association suffice for its market. AUCA is seeking to establish a more regional profile and attract students from beyond Kyrgyzstan. It hopes to leverage its partnership with Bard College to attract students who want a U.S. degree but who might not want to travel far from home to obtain it.

Officials looking at possible forms of transnational education, such as branch campuses, twinning, or joint or dual degrees, can draw lessons from the experience of

AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG. Having a foreign source of legitimacy, namely accreditation, was vital for AUBG, which was created in the early transition period as one of the first private institutions in the country. Although it did not have foreign accreditation, SEEU enjoyed strong support from the international community, a source of legitimacy. AUCA built upon its local legitimacy, gaining foreign accreditation through its partnership with

Bard College. All three institutions have used their foreign sources of support to solidify

219 their market legitimacy. They offer to students a pathway to the West that few other institutions in their national systems or in the region can provide. They have benefitted from rankings and, through their selectivity, pricing, and investment in curb appeal, have cultivated a perception of prestige. At the same time, they have maintained their national accreditation, thereby deriving legitimacy from the state. Many of their graduates, particularly those from AUCA and SEEU, will enter the domestic job market, where employers often require candidates to have a national diploma. At AUBG, students receive a Bulgarian diploma—with the added benefit, since 2007, of being an EU degree—and a U.S. diploma, which are recognized across the many home countries of

AUBG students. The dual foreign and local legitimacy is something that must be considered by those examining transnational education opportunities. Other elements of success require a nuanced understanding of the educational system of the host country, and a balance of local personnel connected to national academic networks with expatriates who provide linkages to global networks.

In some ways, it might have been simpler for these institutions to rely only on foreign accreditation. AUCA and SEEU could feasibly have followed the AUBG example and borrowed a mentor university’s accreditation until they could attain independent accreditation. Yet the result of such an approach would have isolated AUCA and SEEU from their national systems and academic networks. One of the motivations of the global sponsors of these universities was that they would have some influence on reform processes and integration into global education institutions. Although the influence of AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG has been limited, they are nonethless participants—not bystanders—in the shaping of policy through their regular interactions

220 with the national ministries, accrediting teams, and academic colleagues. If the mission of these universities were strictly commercial viability, then they might have opted not to pursue local accreditation and instead operated as for-profit institutions. If this were the case, then they would have remained foreign outposts, rather than full-fledged participants—albeit odd animals—in the national higher-education system.

Extending the Glonacal

This examination of how AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG sought to establish legitimacy reveals the dynamic interrelationships described by Marginson and Rhoades

(2002) in their glonacal agency heuristic. Through my study, however, it became clear that this framework required an additional layer of complexity: the regional. Although global influences were crucial in shaping these institutions, regional tendencies arguably had an equal or greater impact on their development. For SEEU and AUBG, it is difficult to overstate the influence of the European Union and the Bologna Process on these institutions as well as on the national higher-education systems in Macedonia and

Bulgaria. The aspirations of these countries to be a part of the European Higher

Education Area was a key driver shaping education policy. The comment by an AUBG administrator, cited earlier, that the university was where higher education in Bulgaria was moving toward underscores this point. The same could be said for SEEU.

Regional influences have similarly affected the development of AUCA. Although some attention has been given to the Bologna Process, Kyrgyz educational policy is shaped more by influence from Russia, as well as from larger, wealthier countries in the region, such as Kazakhstan. Russia has even led in the creation of what it hopes will one

221 day be a counterweight to the European Union, the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).

The Kyrgyz Republic has joined this union.

All three institutions in this study are, in essence, regional in scope. AUBG casts the widest net in its recruitment efforts but focuses primarily on the Balkans, Eastern

Europe, and Eurasia for its students. SEEU’s region extends into Kosovo, Serbia,

Albania, and Albanian diaspora communities. AUCA’s marketing efforts are mainly in

Central Asia. This regional positioning of the universities requires them to be attuned to regional dynamics. For this reason, adding the regional to the glonacal heuristic enhances its explanatory value.

Sustainability: From International Sponsorship Toward Tuition Dependence

AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG required significant start-up funding when they were established as independent universities. The active involvement of the international community in the early stages of development of these universities enabled them to weather major political and economic challenges. The initial motivations of the international organizations that supported these universities reflected the broader ethos of the period, although they were particularized to each country. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the opening up of countries behind the Iron Curtain to the West coincided with the rising currency of neoliberal ideology in the wake of the Reagan-Thatcher era. The

United States, together with the newly emerging European Union, undertook a foreign- policy strategy of democracy promotion and market-based economic reforms with the aim of integrating the former Eastern-bloc countries and newly independent republics of the former Soviet Union into global political and economic institutions. The end of the

Cold War was marked with a sense of inevitability of the neoliberal reform agenda,

222 which promotes an ethos of competition in all spheres of society through privatization of state-owned assets, market-based economic reform, and deregulation of public services.

The global actors involved in the creation of these universities, although differing in some specific motivations, came from this milieu of western institutions, where the neoliberal worldview held sway. This does not mean that they consciously entered into these university projects with the aim of promoting the neoliberal ideology, but it is important to recognize how influential this school of thought was during the period. This study is an attempt to understand, at the institutional level, how this interplay of ideas and influences translated into the operation of a higher-education institution. The evolution of financing for these universities provides insights into the global and national influences on them and the challenges that might have an impact on their sustainability.

AUCA, which started as a local initiative within the Kyrgyz National State

University, drew the attention of the U.S. government as an opportunity to offer an alternative form of higher education. The Kyrgyz higher-education system had a strong legacy of public higher education inherited from the Soviet Union. In the waning years of the Soviet Union and the period of economic and political uncertainty that followed its demise, the Kyrgyz higher-education system (and school system) had deteriorated. The extremely limited resources available in Kyrgyzstan during the early years of transition resulted in minimal investment in public higher education, yet demand for higher education was high. To meet this rising demand, the Kyrgyz government had two options: to diversify higher education by allowing private institutions, or to permit private funding in public education through fees (Heyneman, 2011). Ultimately, both options were adopted. Private, for-profit institutions began to emerge, and state universities began

223 admitting, on a self-paying basis, students who did not receive state scholarships. The

Kyrgyz government’s incentives for introducing these reforms came in the form of access to loans from multilateral development banks and foreign assistance from governments and nongovernmental aid organizations. By 1994, Kyrgyzstan was the recipient of more foreign development aid than any other former Soviet republic of Central Asia

(McGlinchey, 2011).

U.S. government support for the Kyrgyz-American School and subsequently for

AUCA dovetailed with its foreign policy goals of reforming higher education, promoting democracy, and improving ties between the United States and the Kyrgyz Republic. The investment in what would become AUCA fit well in the USAID development strategy for

Central Asia. This funding had a shelf-life, however, as development priorities shifted and U.S. presidential administrations changed. Engaging OSI to form a public-private partnership in support of AUCA was key to sustainability. OSI remains actively engaged, providing substantial support through the Bard College partnership. The longterm U.S. military involvement in nearby Afghanistan, perhaps fortunately for AUCA, kept the level of American attention—and funding—in the Kyrgyz Republic high.

George Soros’s OSI has been a essential partner to all three universities in this study. OSI took a strong interest in capacity-building in higher education across the former Eastern bloc. Soros, a native of Hungary, had a personal interest in the region’s development into open, democratic societies. William Newton-Smith (2007), who has a decades-long association with OSI, offered this definition of an open society, a term originating in the writings of philosopher Karl Popper:

An open society is a democratic society, governed by the rule of law with strong

224 civic institutions. It is not merely a tolerant society, it is one whose members

positively enjoy and value diversity in regard to ethnicity, religion and culture.

And, most importantly, it is a society of “engaged” individuals (p. 29).

Newton-Smith further explains that OSI’s interest in capacity building in higher education has been focused primarily on the humanities and social sciences, since engaged citizens need to be informed of the issues of the day. Thus, the organization’s support for the liberal-arts mission of AUCA and AUBG coincides with its core philosophy. However, he also indicates that OSI has an interest in supporting management and economic disciplines, which illustrates how OSI’s philosophy is consistent with broader neoliberal thought. “The absence of stable economic growth,” said Newton-Smith, “can tend to create the conditions favorable to the development of non-open societies . . . hence OSI does take a particular interest in capacity building in economics and management education” (p. 31). Although OSI’s primary motivation as an organization is to promote democratic, tolerant, societies with civic-minded citizens, a precondition for the emergence of such societies is a growth-oriented, competitive, free- market economic system, which is also the central tenet of neoliberalism. OSI’s support for management and economic disciplines merits attention, as these have consistently been the most popular majors among students at AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG.

USAID’s goal for investment in the American University in Bulgaria was similarly motivated: creating an independent alternative to state universities. Bulgaria was traditionally perceived to follow the Soviet economic model more rigidly than other

Eastern-bloc neighbors (Crampton, 2005). In contrast with AUCA, which remained a local initiative in its early years, AUBG was built from scratch and required significant

225 start-up capital. Active involvement by U.S. government officials secured the funding and brought the University of Maine in as a partner. Early financial support from OSI was also vital, and OSI was for many years AUBG’s largest private donor (Phillips,

2004). From its initial conception as an independent, liberal-arts–style institution with a sizeable proportion of Western-trained instructors, AUBG was set up to be an expensive operation (Newton-Smith, 2007). Indeed, AUBG’s financial sustainability was a major concern through its first decade and a half of operations. In AUBG’s 2006 Self-Study, the authors noted that “emergency infusions of support from USAID have been necessary in the past to prevent the institution from failing financially” (p. 81). Only in 2006 was the university considered by AUBG’s leadership to be on sustainable financial footing—15 years into its operations. Nevertheless, other external streams of funding, namely from the America for Bulgaria Foundation, OSI, and the Albanian-American Development

Foundation, have continued to play a crucial role in sustaining and expanding the university. Without these sources of funding, it is unclear that AUBG would be able to survive.

SEEU had a shorter timeframe in which to reach self-sustainability. SEEU was founded in 2001 and within a decade, according to its 2012 Self-Evaluation Report, was

“fully self-financed, dependent on student tuition for a large portion of income” (p. 22).

SEEU was created to address the urgent issue of provision of higher education in

Albanian, in order to ease tensions between ethnic Albanians and the Macedonians. Start- up funding came primarily from USAID and the European Commission and individual

European governments, with the Macedonian government offering the land for the campus rent-free for 99 years. When the urgency of this language issue was defused, the

226 funding from USAID and the European Union gradually slowed. The emergence in 2004 of the publicly funded State University of Tetovo, which also offered instruction in

Albanian for a much lower price than SEEU, ensured that demand for higher education in the Albanian language was met. The threat of a violent ethnic conflict in Macedonia seemed unlikely as a power sharing coalition of Macedonian and ethnic-Albanian parties established relative stability. The attention of U.S. and EU funding agencies shifted next door to the project of forming an independent Kosovo. Other private funders, such as OSI and the King Baudouin Foundation, have continued to provide support through scholarship funding. Nevertheless, no major provider of external support has emerged for

SEEU, unlike AUCA, with its Bard College partnership, or AUBG, which benefited from the America for Bulgaria Foundation. To a greater degree than AUCA or AUBG, SEEU has had to depend on tuition.

SEEU’s dependence on tuition is reflected in its self-evaluation report from

November 2012, in which it indicates that in the 2011–12 academic year, income from tuition fees accounted for 85.47% of revenue, commercial income from auxiliary activities provided 5.35%, income from interest and the endowment amounted to 2.61%, and only 6.57% came from projects, grants, and donations. In contrast, in 2011–12,

AUCA reports that direct student-tuition payments accounted for only 27% of revenue, while income from external scholarship sources provided 39%, grants and gifts contributed 24%, and the endowment accounted for 9%. At AUBG, for the 2011–12 fiscal year, income from tuition accounted for 48% of operating revenue. Grants, external scholarships, and gifts amounted to 18.5%; outreach activities, such as the ESL program, consulting, and graduate programs, accounted for 12%; auxiliary services, including

227 residence halls and dining, contributed 14.6%; and the drawdown from the endowment provided 5.5%. I should note that a $10-million contribution from the American for

Bulgaria Foundation received in 2011–12 is recorded in the financial statement, but excluded from this calculation of operating revenues. This funding was for scholarships for Bulgarian citizens and the building of a new student center. Nevertheless, the balance sheets of the institutions paint a revealing picture of the extent to which they have or have not moved toward tuition dependence.

At SEEU, tuition income is paramount to its sustainability as a university. The overwhelming reliance on tuition at SEEU makes it particularly susceptible to variations in student demand. AUCA continues to rely heavily on external scholarship sources that ease the tuition burden on students and to some extent provide a buffer against economic uncertainty for families in Kyrgyzstan, where most of its students come from. According to the university’s website, 90% of students at AUCA receive some form of aid, much of it from external donors. At AUBG, although basic operational costs can be supported by tuition revenues, albeit with external scholarship funding and endowment earnings, the university’s ambitious building plans and efforts to enhance its curb appeal are dependent on significant external contributions.

Table 5.1 Tuition vs. Per Capita Gross National Income Institution 2015–16 Base Undergrad Yearly Tuition Yearly GNI Per Capita PPP 2014 AUCA $5,750 $3,220 SEEU $1,420 $12,800 AUBG $11,300 $16,260 Source: World Bank

Table 5.1 presents a comparison of tuition at AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG and the per-capita gross national income of their respective countries. At AUCA, annual tuition

228 exceeds national income by 78%. AUCA’s enrollment management strategy is to offer significant levels of financial aid to students to make it affordable to a greater proportion of students—that is, it follows a high-tuition, high-aid model. The AUCA website lists a number of scholarships available to students. Significant external funding is provided by

U.S. government sources, as well as by private sources such as OSI, the U.S.–Central

Asia Education Foundation, the MINA Corp, and the Aga Khan Foundation. By cultivating donors for scholarship aid, AUCA has been able to maintain its tuition level.

Taken together with the externally funded scholarships, tuition payments account for

66% of AUCA’s revenue.

SEEU’s tuition rate reflects the economic reality in Macedonia, where wages are higher, relative to Kyrgyzstan, but public higher education is inexpensive. The proximity of Western Europe, where free or low-cost public higher education is the norm, also factors into SEEU’s tuition. SEEU’s approach is to charge variable tuition, depending on the field of study, and to charge less than other for-profit private institutions in

Macedonia. Its base undergraduate tuition in 2015–16 was set at 650 euros per semester, or roughly $710. This amount is charged for full-time students of the faculty of law, the faculty of public administration and political science, and the faculty of languages, cultures and communication. Full-time students enrolling in the faculty of contemporary sciences and technologies pay 900 euros a semester in tuition (roughly $982), but if their major is business informatics, they pay an additional 100 euros. Similarly, students enrolling in the faculty of business and economics pay 900 euros or as much as 1,000 euros for information systems and management majors. A dual diploma program with the

London School of Economics is offered for 1,000 euros. In addition, several specialized

229 majors in business and IT are supported by private-sector employers, who pay 1,000 euros of tuition for their staff to pursue SEEU degrees. By comparison, the public State

University of Tetovo has a quota of state-subsidized seats it offers at a tuition rate of only

100 euros per semester; self-pay students are charged 200 euros per semester. Even

SEEU’s least-expensive programs are three times more expensive than the public competitor a few blocks away.

This differentiated tuition has been one adaptation strategy for SEEU. The stagnant economy in Macedonia and increasing competition from inexpensive branches of state institutions have required SEEU to keep its tuition as low as possible while still supporting its operations. The university must keep attuned to student demand for majors as its seeks to charge what the market can bear without negatively affecting its enrollment. At the same time, SEEU has actively sought partnerships with local companies that provide scholarships for students who will then commit to working at those companies. The university is also experimenting with apprenticeship arrangements.

These enrollment strategies are necessitated by the competitive environment in

Macedonia. SEEU has received limited support from the foreign donors that provided its funding in the early years.

SEEU, as a public-private university, was legally eligible to receive state financial support, but it had not received any funding from the Macedonian government prior to

2015. In 2016–17, for the first time, it has been allocated state money to offer scholarships to Macedonian citizens. This recent change in policy implementation by the

Macedonian government is significant and provides a financial lifeline to SEEU. It also indicates a further integration into the state system of higher education. SEEU may not

230 need a foreign partner university, such as Bard College, if the Macedonian government steps up as a sponsor. It may also become more like a public university along the lines of a Western-European model.

AUBG’s tuition presents a challenge to families in Bulgaria, where one year of tuition amounts to nearly 70% of average annual income. AUBG, however, is less reliant on Bulgarian domestic demand, which accounts for less than 50% of enrollment. In any case, Bulgarian enrollments are sustained largely through scholarships from the America for Bulgaria Foundation. Beyond Bulgaria, AUBG recruits actively in other Eastern-bloc countries for students with the personal means to pay for tuition. These efforts are also supplemented by externally funded scholarship aid. OSI scholarships support students from other Eastern-bloc countries who seek to enroll at AUBG. The Albanian-American

Education Foundation, which like ABF was created from the remaining proceeds of a

U.S.–government investment fund, offers scholarships to Albanians who enroll at AUBG.

These scholarships allow AUBG to diversify its student population by remaining affordable to a portion of families across the region. In all, 73% of AUBG students receive some form of scholarship aid (AUBG website, 2015). This number has declined from the 90% reported in its 2011 NEASC interim report (American University in

Bulgaria, 2011, p. 2). Although AUBG has been able to maintain enrollment at a level that covers its basic operating expenses, its strategic goal is to grow enrollment by an additional 200–400 students (American University in Bulgaria, 2009). The additional tuition revenue from larger enrollment will allow the university not merely to survive as an institution but to invest in further growth and improvement.

In the cases of AUBG and AUCA, as this analysis shows, “tuition dependence”

231 must be viewed with a degree of skepticism. The continuing support of global partners, governmental and nongovernmental, through scholarship funding allows these institutions to collect sufficient tuition—either directly from students or from generous scholarship providers—to cover their basic operating costs. Without that external support, the sustainability of these universities might come into question. By diversifying these external sources of scholarship monies and attracting new institutional and individual donors, AUCA and AUBG can continue to have confidence in maintaining adequate enrollments without dramatically compromising quality. Recruiting beyond Kyrgyzstan and Bulgaria will also provide greater stability. AUBG has been very successful at attracting students from across the former Eastern bloc and is looking toward new opportunities in Turkey and China (American University in Bulgaria, 2009). On the one hand, AUCA still focuses primarily on the local market, but it has had some success at regional recruiting. SEEU, on the other hand, lacks these significant external scholarship sources and must calibrate its pricing and its operational spending to ensure that its financial situation is sustainable. SEEU has shown ingenuity in forging relationships with companies in Macedonia that cover tuition costs for students they will then hire. As the institution matures, it should further cultivate public and private donors to provide scholarship funding that will enable it to increase tuition to a level that will allow for greater investments in the institution. The new funding from the Macedonian government could prove to be vital for SEEU. For all three institutions, this adaptation strategy involves balancing the expectations of current and potential donors with the need to respond to the national and international markets where they recruit students.

By maintaining this balance, all three institutions have matured from their early

232 days of full reliance on external financial support. This movement toward sustaining their operations with tuition, albeit along with generous scholarship providers, reveals an important shift. If initially AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG could be viewed as projects that were part of a larger foreign-policy agenda, they now are increasingly operating simply as universities within the higher-education landscape of their respective homes. The aid agencies and foreign governments have to some extent disengaged from these projects as the policy imperative lessened. Nevertheless, some of the money continues to flow to the universities, but in the form of grants and donations for scholarships or facilities improvements that follow a university fundraising model more common in the United

States and, to a lesser extent, western Europe. As long as the donors are satisfied with the general direction, philosophy, and fiscal health of the institutions, they will continue to donate. There is a growing normalcy in this arrangement that provided cause for optimism among many of the administrators with whom I spoke.

Several important lessons can be drawn from this closer look at the evolution of funding at these universities. At their inception, these institutions were an element of a larger foreign-aid agenda. Foreign aid is fickle, however, and can dry up rapidly as policy priorities shift to the problem du jour. In this case, attention shifted from the post–Cold

War transition to the global war on terror. The early sponsors of these institutions assumed their financial support would be needed only for the short term. Bulgaria was on a pathway to the European Union. Macedonia was not far behind. Kyrgyzstan was developing its market economy. But the early sponsors’ assumption proved to be wrong.

Economic prosperity has come slowly to these countries, set back further by the global economic crisis that began in 2008. As the per-capita income figures in Table 5.1

233 demonstrate, there is not a critical mass of citizens in Kyrgyzstan, Bulgaria, or

Macedonia that can afford to pay tuition at levels that would sustain these universities.

For this reason, scholarships are heavily subsidized by many of the same actors who assumed they would not need to extend substantial support decades into the lives of these universities.

Another aspect of this sustainability question relates to the decision to create a university from scratch or to build upon an existing university. SEEU and AUBG were both built as new institutions, whereas AUCA emerged from an existing entity with its own faculty and administrators. As Newton-Smith (2007) noted, sustainability is enhanced by reforming an existing local institution. Forming the independent American

University of Kyrgyzstan from the already functioning Kyrgyz-American School cost significantly less than creating a new institution. Retaining local faculty through the initial years of transition was also a benefit. But creating a new institution allows for greater innovation in introducing an alternative to existing higher-education institutions, as was the case with AUBG and SEEU. The cost was significantly greater, however, as these universities required all new staffing, curriculum, and infrastructure. In Macedonia, it might have been possible to build upon the existing illegal State University of Tetovo, which was teaching in Albanian. The leadership at that university was considered too politically extreme and the academic quality poor, however, so a clean slate was preferred by the Macedonian, EU, and U.S. founders of SEEU. These founders assumed that SUT would be unlikely to survive once SEEU was up and running, an assumption that also proved wrong. This decision has indeed resulted in challenges to SEEU’s sustainability. The relatively high cost of creating the institution from scratch has led to

234 struggles to attract students able to afford its higher tuition. SUT did not fold but rather emerged as a direct competitor for enrollment when it was made a legal state university three years after SEEU’s founding. AUBG provided a clear and innovative alternative to state higher education in Bulgaria, but at great cost to its funders that continued well into its second decade of operation. Its initial commitment to hiring a substantial proportion of expatriate administrators and faculty was a major factor both in making AUBG a distinctly different type of university in Bulgaria and in making it a very expensive endeavor. This choice carries implications for policymakers or university officials looking at transnational education opportunities. Building upon an existing institution may require less initial investment and greater sustainability. This more cautious approach, however, is less likely to produce an institution offering something radically different in the national context.

Mission and Adaptation

In their quest for legitimacy in the market and pursuit of tuition revenue, institutions can run the risk of commercialization. A counterbalance to this risk is a clear sense of identity—or an institution’s “soul,” as one AUBG administrator put it. AUCA,

SEEU, and AUBG have a mission and set of values that have provided cohesion through periods of change. Based on her study of adaptive universities, Barbara Sporn (1999) concluded that having a focused mission and goals was foremost among six shared characteristics of adaptive universities. AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG were each founded with a specific purpose. They were something new and unusual in their respective countries and continue to stand out from their counterparts within the national higher- education system. Although the initial mission has evolved somewhat along with the

235 universities’ changing environments, a core sense of purpose and values permeates the institutions. All of the participants in this study—faculty, staff, and students—expressed this sense of being a part of something unique. Nevertheless, as these universities become more dependent on tuition and adapt to an increasingly competitive environment, their mission and values are tested.

At AUCA and AUBG, where a commitment to liberal education is a central tenet in their mission and institutional identity, pursuing revenue to sustain their operations can hold some risks. In its 2006 self-study, AUBG acknowledged this danger of commercialization, noting that students were increasingly choosing professional programs in business administration and journalism over majors such as American studies and English. AUBG saw a need to reinforce the connection between its liberal education and these professional programs or “risk losing [its] fundamental identity”

(American University in Bulgaria, 2006, p. 29). With the aid of a grant from the Andrew

Mellon Foundation, the university undertook a reform of its general education program.

The revised general education program ensured that all AUBG students, even those in professional majors, completed a breadth of coursework characteristic of liberal education.

AUCA faced similar concerns. Faculty and administrators worried that the popularity of professional programs such as business administration, international business law, and software engineering were diminishing the liberal-arts mission of the university. AUCA established its first-year seminar requirement for all students to reinforce its emphasis on a broad liberal-arts education. Bard College was integral in the development of the first-year seminar.

236 At SEEU, where emphasis was less on liberal education, the challenge has been in shifting the point of emphasis of its mission. At its founding, the greatest emphasis was placed on the language rights of the ethnic Albanian population. This was the immediate need in Macedonia and the primary concern of the international organizations backing the university. Once the urgency of that need was addressed with the opportunity for

Albanian-speaking students to study at SEEU and later at the State University of Tetovo,

SEEU’s emphasis shifted to academic excellence and adherence with European standards and principles. Language still matters at SEEU, but much more attention is given to the mission of the university to lead the integration of Macedonian higher education into EU integration.

Nevertheless, in response to the global economic crisis that began in 2008,

AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG have focused more resources on the employability of their graduates. In her study of private higher education in the former Eastern bloc, Slantcheva

(2007) warns against private institutions focusing too narrowly on preparing students for jobs in the global economy, much as their public predecessors had prepared technocrats for the socialist economy. Slantcheva argues, “Danger lurks in the mere replacement of a former class of state technocrats with global workforce functionaries” (p. 70). Ong (2006) similarly worries that the humanist mission associated with liberal education faces a threat from “a stress on skills talent, and borderless neoliberal ethos” (p. 148). AUCA,

SEEU, and AUBG continually balance the need to remain true to a core mission that promotes tolerance and an appreciation for diversity, academic excellence, integrity, and humanist values. At AUCA and AUBG, the liberal-arts curriculum has not detracted from employability, but rather benefited students by providing the soft skills and critical

237 thinking valued by many employers. At SEEU, partnering with companies to provide pathways to jobs has not undermined its emphasis on academic quality.

Enrollment pressures, however, are another aspect of commercialization, as these relatively expensive universities recruit new students. Student participants at both AUBG and AUCA raised concerns about declining standards of admission. Records at the institutions show that TOEFL requirements have declined somewhat, which is attributable to the shift in recruitment toward countries where high-school preparation in

English is of a lower quality. Maintaining a reputation for excellence, as well as an “aura of success,” are key strategies for all three institutions; therefore, they must protect against perceptions that they are lowering their standards in order to boost enrollment. At

SEEU, students did not raise this concern directly, but the downward enrollment trend certainly was worrisome for several administrators with whom I spoke. For now at least,

AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG still enjoy reputations as providers of the most prestigious education in their respective countries.

Preserving a reputation for prestige, however, can have a downside. High tuition in societies where wages are relatively low can generate negative attitudes toward a university. Bertelsen (2009) observed in his study of the American University of Beirut and the American University of Cairo that access problems created by high tuition “can create an image of aloofness and isolation from society” (p. 5). Many faculty members involved in this study expressed concerns about the rising cost of tuition, believing their universities’ were not providing enough access to socioeconomically diverse students.

They worried that this tendency ran counter to the humanist values that were part of their institutional identities. At AUCA and AUBG, externally sponsored scholarships were

238 helping to address this concern. The Mina Corporation funded AUCA’s New Generation

Academy, which was designed to provide pre-baccalaureate English and math to less affluent Kyrgyz students outside the capital, offering a pathway to admission to AUCA with a scholarship. OSI scholarships at both AUBG and SEEU also target less affluent students who otherwise could not pay the tuition at these private institutions. Maintaining these donor relationships and developing new ones will continue to be a key strategy that allows these institutions to avoid the danger of excessive commercialization. Fortunately for the universities, donors such as OSI share the humanist values that are core to their missions and thus they are motivated to continue giving support. AUCA, SEEU, and

AUBG do not need to compromise their missions if they are aligned with the primary external sources of funding.

At AUBG and AUCA, the significance which students, faculty, and administrators place on the liberal-education mission of these institutions came across clearly in my interactions with them. In this respect, these two institutions, which hew more closely to a U.S. model, differ considerably from SEEU. The scale of AUCA and

AUBG, which are about one-quarter the size of SEEU, is an important factor in their ability to preserve a coherent mission and set of institutional values. The school spirit at both AUCA and AUBG was clear throughout their campus communities. School spirit, which reflects the larger missions of the universities, was reinforced by the student affairs divisions at AUBG and AUCA. SEEU does not place such an emphasis on student affairs. This difference with regard to student affairs is common between U.S. undergraduate institutions and European counterparts, and it can have an impact on the shared sense of mission.

239 This mission is further reinforced when students live together in residence halls and actively engage in campus activities. AUBG has invested considerable resources in developing a modern campus with residence halls that offer better living conditions than in much of the surrounding community. Having ample residence hall space was also critical for AUBG to recruit students from beyond Bulgaria. AUCA has lacked a residence hall of its own, which has hindered its efforts to recruit more widely. With the opening of the new campus, AUCA is also seeking to address the need for residence halls that are attractive to students from afar. SEEU has 450 spaces in its residence halls, which accommodate only about 10% of the university’s student population. AUCA and

SEEU, therefore, lack this resource that AUBG has leveraged to recruit successfully well beyond Bulgaria. Their campuses, compared with AUBG, resemble commuter campuses where students attend classes and return home in the evening. AUBG is a residential campus, where students study and live, resulting in a greater degree of student activities, clubs, and organizations than at AUCA and SEEU. This student life aspect fosters a culture that reflects the liberal-education mission.

Striking a Balance between Local and Global

Higher education has traditionally been seen as the province of a local or a national institution, but today, universities increasingly have a global reach. AUCA,

SEEU, and AUBG provide concrete examples of this tendency. All three universities benefit in many ways from their connection to global knowledge networks. Nevertheless, they also have to remain in good standing within their local higher-education systems, a task that has often proved frustrating. Scott (2007) points out that as legal frameworks for private higher education emerged, they conferred some degree of legitimacy on these

240 universities, but they might also “inhibit growth and adaptability, qualities that private institutions must be able to demonstrate to survive and thrive” (p. 307). Scott voices a challenge that the universities faced as they sought acceptance while also wanting to maintain autonomy from their national higher-education systems. Administrators with whom I spoke shared their frustrations with the demands placed upon them by local authorities. AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG seemed continually to be on a pendulum of accommodating and resisting local requirements. They sought the legitimacy of the state diploma and therefore had to adhere to regulations, but when the regulations seemed to take them too far from their mission, they resisted. The legitimacy that they enjoyed through their association with the international community—including foreign governments and agencies—gave them the confidence to risk not complying fully, essentially daring the authorities to shut them down due to some regulation. The diplomatic embarrassment this could cause seems to grant these institutions greater leeway to define their missions. The national education authorities, for their part, frequently saw great utility in having these universities operate and were often active supporters. Ministry of education officials often pointed to the success of AUCA, AUBG, and SEEU when promoting a reform agenda. In Bulgaria and Macedonia, for example, university rankings were funded by the ministries at least in part to stimulate innovation and change among more conservative state institutions. Thus the accommodation goes both ways.

In fact, the host country governments made conscious decisions to allow these institutions to be established and remain in operation. This is not always the case.

Changing political contexts often pose a threat to universities that offer an alternative to

241 state higher education. A recent reminder of this is the case of the Kazakh British

Technical University (KBTU) in Almaty. In December 2015, the authoritarian president of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, declared that it was necessary to merge the private

KBTU with the public Kazakh National Technical University (“Nazarbayev: KazNTU and KBTU to be Merged, 2015). This intervention by the state into the operation of a private university was a continual fear for these universities.

Failing to be attentive to the demands of the local higher-education context can be risky, as the example in Kazakhstan shows. In its early years, AUBG was focused on maintaining its relations with the U.S. and Bulgarian entities on which it depended for its survival. That emphasis on external relations, according to its 2006 self-study, diverted resources and attention away from planning and preparation for the rapidly changing social, political, and economic environment of the university. Without the strong ties with

U.S. and Bulgarian government supporters, AUBG might have “slipped into extinction during those critical early years” (p. 12). Thus, AUBG learned a lesson that has value for

AUCA and SEEU, as well other imported universities: they need to balance the global and the local.

The role of faculty in maintaining this balance is vital. On the one hand, AUBG’s predominance of expatriate faculty is a strategic choice that underscores the international connectedness of the university as well as its commitment to its liberal-education mission. On the other hand, Bulgarian faculty members have played a critical role for the university through their links with other institutions in the country and region. The

Bulgarian faculty presence also allows AUBG to continue to meet the requirements for

Bulgarian accreditation (American University of Bulgaria, 2011). To strike this balance,

242 then, the ideal faculty recruit is a native Bulgarian with a Western Ph.D. Several participants in this study fit this mold, and some administrators indicated that this is a promising development. As more Bulgarians pursue doctorates in the West, AUBG will have a pool from which to recruit, and the pool will include many of its own alumni. The appointment in January 2016 of the first Bulgarian president of AUBG—an alumnus of

AUBG and former board member—reflects this strategy.

AUCA and SEEU similarly strive to have a proportion of expatriate faculty to maintain their international image. They are also seeking, more and more, to recruit local citizens who have earned their doctorates abroad. At AUCA, having an expatriate president and a Kyrgyz provost has proved beneficial in striking a balance between international stakeholders in the university and local higher-education officials. At SEEU, having local leadership who are well- connected to domestic political circles and a board with strong ties to the international community has ensured a balance between the global and local.

This local-regional-global dynamic can be seen in how AUCA, SEEU, and

AUBG are connected to the flows of students throughout their regions and around the world. Much more so than their counterparts, these universities must remain attuned to shifts in the local as well as the global environment that might have an impact on them.

The recruitment efforts of these institutions illustrate their connections beyond national borders.

When enrollments from Bulgaria and Romania dropped after these countries’ accession to the European Union in 2007, AUBG increased its recruitment efforts in countries where a diploma that was both EU– and U.S.–accredited might have appeal.

243 For students from Russia, Albania, Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and other Eastern-bloc countries, this was attractive. Scholarships from OSI played a crucial role in advancing recruiting efforts in these countries. In fact, OSI scholarships allowed AUBG to diversify its student population from the early years (Phillips, 2004).

AUCA is seeking to diversify its student population much like AUBG. AUCA’s geographic positioning differs from its Bulgarian counterpart. Scholarships from the U.S. government, OSI, and other sources are vital in this effort to diversify. Scholarships have allowed a number of Afghan students, as well as steady numbers of students from

Tajikistan, to enroll at AUCA. Administrators at AUCA expressed hope that they would be able to attract some full-fee paying students from China, particularly from the Muslim

Xinjiang province, which has some cultural commonalities with Kyrgyzstan.

SEEU’s diversification through international recruitment, according to those I spoke with there, focuses on ethnic Albanian communities in Kosovo, southern Serbia, and Albania. The Albanian diaspora in Switzerland, Germany, and other western

European countries is also seen as a growing market. SEEU also does some recruitment of ethnic Turks in the region. Its accreditation from the Turkish Ministry of Education

(YOK) provides an advantage in this effort. SEEU also intends to position itself as the highest-quality institution not merely for ethnic minority populations in the country, but for all students. The Skopje campus provides an opportunity to attract more ethnic

Macedonian students to SEEU. Students from more affluent families who are able to pay

SEEU tuition for a better education are the primary market. Apart from the diaspora in western Europe, however, SEEU focuses its efforts primarily within Macedonia or just beyond the borders in neighboring Kosovo, Albania, and Serbia.

244 The flow across borders of students seeking an education underscores that these universities occupy a space beyond their national borders. For these students, these universities are seen as a stepping stone to an interconnected world of young professionals like themselves. Some are critical of the universities playing this role, describing them as “the training ground for young people who are bilingual and familiar with the local cultures as well as versed in American business practices” (Musha, 2004, p. 45). Despite the criticism, those I met with at AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG take pride in their institutions and see them as creating a space that is at once both local and global, connecting graduates to a cosmopolitan world of nomads working in global companies and institutions. The faculty and administrators with whom I met expressed the hope that their graduates will take with them into this cosmopolitan world the humanist values that are a core part of their universities’ missions.

Limitations

Although this study provides interesting insights into the phenomenon of imported university models, it has several limitations. The qualitative methodology employed in this study places significant emphasis on what participants had to say about their institutions. Much of what they said was based on their impressions, interpretations, and perceptions. I often present their statements as is, that is, I did not challenge or factcheck all that the participants said. This approach was a deliberate choice, however.

This spotlight on how faculty, students, and other stakeholders perceive their institutions and their contexts offers valuable insights. These individuals play an active role in shaping the cultures of their institutions and affecting how they adapt and evolve; thus, their viewpoints and opinions form the core of my study. Where possible, I have sought

245 to supplement and contextualize with data from document analysis. Nevertheless, to some it may seem that the reliance on extensive quotation of participants in Chapter IV gives too much attention to what might be deemed anecdotal. Those seeking a more empirical, fact-based study might criticize this research as too impressionistic. But the story told by the participants, albeit impressionistic, nonetheless deepens our understanding of this research area.

The methodology and design of this study have some limitations. The case-study method provides insights into the complexity of its subject, but often the insights drawn are not easily generalizable. The narrow criteria used to select the institutions and the focus on a specific region of the world may raise concerns about how explanatory the insights might be. The relatively small sample of student, faculty, and stakeholder participants further limits the generalizability of the conclusions I draw. However, this study does not suggest that these cases are representative of all American universities overseas. Indeed, the specific historical context in which these universities emerged is unique. Nevertheless, the depth of description provided through the case-study approach illuminates this phenomenon and may lead to greater understanding about the adaptability of higher-education models in different contexts.

Limited time and resources were a challenge. The research design relied first and foremost on interviews with faculty and administrators, focus groups with students, conversations with stakeholders, and document analysis. It was not feasible in the scope of this study for me to speak with everyone who might have insights to offer on this topic. My site visits were timed to occur when universities were in session, but not everyone had availability to meet with me or take part in a focus group. Speaking with a

246 greater number of students might have added valuable nuance to this study. Talking to trustees or government officials involved in the early years of the universities might have also provided valuable insights. Alumni were not a focus of this study, but they would also be able to provide useful insights. There are seemingly endless avenues that this research could have explored with unlimited time and resources.

Another limitation of this study is that it was a snapshot in time taken during the

2012–13 academic year, when I traveled to each campus. To the extent possible, I have presented relevant data from the of the universities leading up to that time. I have also noted some more recent developments, such as the opening of the new campus at AUCA and the appointment of a new president at AUBG in January 2016. Much else has occurred since the 2012–13 academic year, including changes in political leadership in Bulgaria and Macedonia and continuing economic challenges. The adaptation strategies being discussed and employed two years ago may have already shifted in other directions. Time marches on and the development and adaptation of AUCA, SEEU, and

AUBG has moved beyond where it was when I conducted my site visits.

Language was a limitation of this study. Although English is an official language at each institution, because my interviews and focus groups were conducted in English, many potential participants with somewhat less confidence in their English proficiency may have chosen not to take part. My proficiency in Russian, an official language in

Kyrgyzstan, allowed me to supplement interviews at AUCA with informal conversations with staff, students, and faculty, but I could not do the same at SEEU or AUBG. I was able to use some sources in local languages—I can read Bulgarian and Macedonian with some understanding—but relied mostly on English-language resources. In my sampling, I

247 deliberately sought out non-native English speakers, so that my data would not be skewed to the expatriate faculty point of view. To some degree, this balance was achieved using a snowballing technique with the non-native English-speaking faculty to recruit their local colleagues to take part. Nevertheless, language clearly was a limitation of this study.

Subjectivity Statement

My subjectivity as a researcher can also be seen as a limitation of this study.

Although I have sought to let the themes arise from patterns in the data, nevertheless, the act of selecting which themes to include is ultimately a subjective one. Another researcher with the same data might highlight a different set of thematic areas. Another aspect of my subjectivity is that I am a U.S. researcher who spent short periods of time at each of these institutions. My perspective is that of an outsider. Faculty members or administrators who have spent years at these institutions and have an insider’s perspective no doubt have a different view on their adaptation. In addition, at the time of my data collection, I worked for a nongovernmental organization, American Councils for

International Education, that was involved in administering grants and programs that were part of the foreign-aid agenda in the former Eastern bloc. I was involved in two scholarship programs that were directly connected to AUCA and AUBG: the

Turkmenistan AUCA Scholarship Program and the U.S.–Central Asia Enterprise

Scholarship program. From the outset, I made explicit my involvement with a nonprofit organization that administers programs that could be perceived as benefitting the institutions under investigation. My former employer was in some ways what Marginson and Rhoades (2002) would consider a global actor very much engaged with educational processes through our academic mobility, professional training, testing, and development

248 projects. My position within this network makes me more than merely an impartial observer. Although I was not a participant in the specific institutions under study, I was an active participant in the global higher-education networks to which they are connected, and I am biased in believing that in general this network has a positive effect on education worldwide. This involvement sparked my interest in studying these types of universities, and should be noted as a source of valuable perspective but potential bias.

Nevertheless, I tried to be as transparent as possible with my participants and readers about my experience.

Implications of the Study

Despite its limitations, this study offers some valuable insights into how universities with significant foreign involvement adapt to different environments. The region of the former Eastern bloc provided a rich context for examining this topic. The transition period was one of disruption and change across higher-education systems.

Many of the political and economic changes occurring at a macro level throughout the region can be seen through this micro level look at three institutions. The neoliberal reform impulses, often promoted by government and nongovernment aid agendas, can be seen at the institutional level in this study. A lesson drawn from this study might be of the limitations of universities as promoters of ideological agendas. The attention span of policymakers is not well suited to the longterm return on investment that might come from sponsoring these universities. Foreign-aid agencies, acutely focused on the region in the early years of transition and post-conflict in Yugoslavia, shifted their attention before these universities were able to firmly establish themselves. Fortunately, much of the funding continued in different forms, allowing AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG to function.

249 The implications of this are relevant for institutions with foreign involvement that are proliferating in different regions of the world. Many of these institutions are branch campuses of Western universities and therefore have significant foreign involvement at the level of governance and funding.

In addition, policy transfer/borrowing, which has been studied more at the national and regional level, can be seen at play in the cases presented in this study. The pros and cons of starting an institution from scratch according to a foreign template, versus reforming an existing local university, can be seen to some extent in this study.

The negotiation between the global and the local by these universities provides insights that might be of value to leaders of universities around the world that are imported or have significant foreign involvement in their development.

Related to this balance of global and local are implications for organizational change. These universities had to be adaptive in order to survive. They benefited from having a strong mission shared by their faculty, staff, and students. They faced challenges, however, with rapid turnover in leadership and tensions between expatriate and local faculty. These universities are still trying to find the optimal solution to these problems, but the strong sense of identity and mission and the feeling expressed by faculty, staff, and students that they belong to something uniquely valuable has allowed them to survive.

Areas for Further Inquiry

Entire studies might be dedicated to the role of the governing boards of these institutions in linking them with academic, governmental, and business networks. The role of the boards receives only cursory treatment in this study, primarily drawn from

250 document analysis. A look at some of the members of the governing boards and the leadership of these institutions indicates a revolving-door phenomenon between university leadership, government-funded higher-education development projects, and roles with nongovernmental agencies. The literature on the influence of networks could provide an interesting framework for a study on this topic.

Another interesting area of inquiry might focus on alumni of these institutions. As these universities mature and a growing number of alumni progress in their careers, it might be of interest to conduct an analysis of career pathways of graduates of these institutions. Some brief studies have been done, particularly at AUBG, but it seems that no rigorous scholarly effort has been undertaken as yet. This research on alumni might examine more deeply the issue of globally mobile youth and the social and economic implications of this phenomenon. This subject as it relates to globalization more broadly has received some attention in the popular press, notably by Chrystia Freeland (2011,

January/February), and is a rich area for scholarly investigation.

An increasing amount of literature on rankings in higher education is emerging

(Hazelkorn, 2011). Ranking has only recently begun to reach into areas such as

Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, and Bulgaria. I touched upon how, at the institutional level, these rankings played a role not only in marketing strategies but also in giving confidence and a sense of legitimacy to the universities. Rankings clearly have a significant influence on higher education and play a role in the transfer of models and policies. Rankings, and the competitive market that they promote, are closely linked to the neoliberal agenda in higher education reform. Their criteria, such as employability of graduates, emphasize the role of higher education in contributing to economic competitiveness. The various uses of

251 rankings by institutions and policy makers can often have interesting unintended outcomes. Further exploration into this area might prove fruitful.

Further areas of inquiry might include the analysis of policymaking decisions within the ministries of education of Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, and Bulgaria. The existence of these universities would not have been possible without active support from within the governments of their respective countries. An extension of this study could focus on interviews with government officials to shed greater light on the policymaking debates around reform and the openness to new models of higher-education institutions during the transition period.

A further area of inquiry might focus on the role of the university network closely associated with George Soros and his Open Society foundations. A university not mentioned in this study because of its focus on graduate and professional education is the

Central European University (CEU) in Budapest. To some degree, AUCA, AUBG, and

SEEU are feeder institutions for CEU in the social sciences. In a recent interview with the

New York Review of Books, Soros, when asked to name his most important initiatives, points to the Central European University and his think tank, Institute for New Economic

Thinking (INET) (Soros & Schmitz, 2016). He says “[T]here is a revolution going on in the social sciences,” and the university network that his foundations support, as well as the research being done at INET, will provide the intellectual foundation for this revolution. Soros, himself an activist in moving the neoliberal agenda across the Eastern bloc, now seems to be calling for a corrective to neoliberalism. A staunch supporter of a free market that provides the preconditions for open society, he now sees the need for a greater focus on humanistic values, an economic agenda that measures success not only

252 in growth and profit, but also in justice, equality, and protection of the most vulnerable in society.

Conclusion

AUCA, SEEU, and AUBG emerged at a time of post–Cold War optimism— perhaps even naiveté—when policymakers in the West believed that the course of history would lead the former Socialist bloc toward open, democratic, market-based societies.

Many assumed that education might serve as a “magic ingredient” that can promote economic growth, heal social divisions, and foster the development of open societies.

What my study seeks to demonstrate is not a cynical conclusion that education cannot serve this purpose; there is room left for optimism. However, this closer look at the institutional level shows that there is no “magic” involved. Instead, there is a complex and delicate negotiation between the actors involved at the national, regional, and global levels, and within the institutions themselves. A key lesson in this study is that the national context matters and must be taken into account regardless of how strong the foreign support for an institution seems. To survive and thrive, institutions must strike a balance between the global and local, and they must continually recalibrate that balance in response to shifts in the environment. They must have a clear sense of their own purpose, a nuanced understanding of their socioeconomic context, an ability to find common ground with local higher education actors, and a commitment to be in it for the long haul.

As this study revealed, each of these universities served as a nexus, connecting global, regional, and national actors engaged in the shaping of higher education across the Eastern bloc during the transition period. The institutional-level perspective captured

253 in this work shows how relatively small higher-education institutions such as AUCA,

SEEU, and AUBG, experienced and contributed in their own way to the larger currents of sociopolitical change. Within the institutions, the dynamic interplay of ideas could be seen, as faculty and administrators sought to preserve what they saw as the soul of their institution, while also responding to what students expected from their education. Faculty members grappled with the pull of opportunities elsewhere in the global higher education market, while students increasingly saw themselves as members of a globally mobile generation not tied to any particular locale. The institutions sought to take root in the soil of their host countries, yet at the same time were a part of a larger network, regional if not global. In their own small way, they have facilitated greater interconnectedness of national systems of higher education with regional and global networks. A final quote from an administrator at AUCA sums up what is a seemingly simplistic conclusion of this study: “I underestimated how much of an impact the location of a university can have.”

This snapshot of three universities, continuing to adapt to their perpetually changing national contexts, while remaining connected to global and regional knowledge networks and sponsors, has revealed just how complex this process can be.

254 Appendix A

Project Overview for Participants

Taking Root in Foreign Soil: Adaptation Processes of Imported Universities Terrence F. Graham The George Washington University

Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore how a foreign model of higher education, the western-style private nonprofit institutional model, has adapted to different national contexts in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The study examines three institutions that emerged during the same time period, were conceived with similar purposes, yet have had to adapt to different sociopolitical environments. How global, national, and local factors have influenced their adaptation is the central focus of this study.

Methodology I have included three institutions with similar backgrounds in my study: the American University of Central Asia, the American University of Central Asia, and the South East European University. I will first study each institution as individual cases, then I will conduct cross-case analysis. A variety of data sources and data collection methods will be used at each institution. Data will be drawn from documents, interviews of faculty, focus groups with students, interviews with key stakeholders, and observation during site visits.

Benefits of the Study The findings of this study might provide scholars, policymakers, and university administrators with a deeper understanding of how universities can adapt successfully in challenging new environments.

About the Researcher Terrence F. Graham is a doctoral candidate in the Graduate School of Education and Human Development at The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA. Mr. Graham has been in the field of international education for over a dozen years and has lived and traveled extensively in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. He has worked most recently as director of higher education programs at the nonprofit organization American Councils for International Education. His research interest is how globalization is shaping higher-education institutions around the world. His work in this field has brought him into contact with several international universities, such as those included in this study.

255 Appendix B

Informed Consent Forms

Informed Consent Form for Faculty Member Project Title: Taking Root in Foreign Soil: Adaptation Processes of Imported Universities

You are being asked to participate in a research project conducted by Terrence Graham from the Graduate School of Education and Human Development of The George Washington University (GW). You are being asked because you are a faculty member of (university name). Your university has granted permission for this research to be conducted.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to explore how a foreign model of higher education, the western-style, private nonprofit institutional model, has adapted to different national contexts in the former Eastern bloc.

PARTICIPATION: You will be asked to respond to several questions related to your work as a faculty member of (university name) and your work environment. It is expected that your participation will take no more than one hour of your time.

TYPES OF QUESTIONS: The interview will take the form of a discussion about your institution and how it has adapted to its environment. There will not be any questions of a political or personal nature.

RISKS & BENEFITS: The potential risks associated with this study are minimal and will be managed by preserving the confidentiality of your responses. Your university has approved this project; therefore, there will be no repercussions for agreeing or choosing not to take part in this study.

Although we do not expect this project to benefit you directly, we believe it might provide valuable insights for higher education scholars as well as university leaders and policymakers.

VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION: Please understand that participation is completely voluntary. Your decision whether or not to participate will in no way affect your current or future relationship with (university name), its faculty, students, or staff, with American Councils for International Education, or with The George Washington University. You have the right to withdraw from the research at any time without penalty. You also have the right to refuse to answer any question(s) for any reason, without penalty.

CONFIDENTIALITY: Your individual privacy will be maintained in all publications or presentations resulting form this study. Aliases will be used with any quotation included in the study and markers that might reveal your identity, such as your department, will be excluded to minimize the risk.

256

The interview will be recorded on a digital recording device. To preserve the confidentiality of your responses, the recording will be saved under a numerical code on the hard drive of my computer, which is password protected. The key with the codes will likewise be password protected. The interview will be used only for the present study.

LANGUAGE: The interview will be conducted in English. However, you will have the opportunity to review the written transcription of the interview subsequently. At that time, you may suggest corrections to words or phrases that you believe did not accurately convey what you intended to say.

If you have any questions or would like additional information about this research, please contact me at [email protected]. The GW Institutional Review Board, which is administered through the Office of Human Research, has approved this project. You may also contact the OHR at [email protected]. This project has also been approved by your university administration.

A signed copy of this consent form will be given to you.

I understand the above information and have had all of my questions about participation on this research project answered. I voluntarily consent to participate in this research.

Signature of Participant ______Date ______

Printed Name of Participant ______

Signature of Researcher ______Date ______

257 Informed Consent Form for Student Focus Group Participant Project Title: Taking Root in Foreign Soil: Adaptation Processes of Imported Universities

You are being asked to participate in a research project conducted by Terrence Graham from the Graduate School of Education and Human Development of The George Washington University (GW). You are being asked because you are a student of (university name). Your university has granted permission for this research to be conducted.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to explore how a foreign model of higher education, the western-style, private nonprofit institutional model, has adapted to different national contexts in the former Eastern bloc.

PARTICIPATION: You will be asked to respond to several questions related to your studies at (university name) and your academic environment. It is expected that your participation will take no more than 90 minutes of your time.

TYPES OF QUESTIONS: The focus group will take the form of a discussion about your institution and how it has adapted to its environment. There will not be any questions of a political or personal nature.

RISKS & BENEFITS: The potential risks associated with this study are minimal and will be managed by preserving the confidentiality of your responses. Your university has approved this project; therefore, there will be no repercussions for agreeing or choosing not to take part in this study.

Although we do not expect this project to benefit you directly, we believe it might provide valuable insights for higher education scholars as well as university leaders and policymakers.

VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION: Please understand that participation is completely voluntary. Your decision whether or not to participate will in no way affect your current or future relationship with (university name), its faculty, students, or staff, with American Councils for International Education, or with The George Washington University. You have the right to withdraw from the research at any time without penalty. You also have the right to refuse to answer any question(s) for any reason, without penalty.

CONFIDENTIALITY: Your individual privacy will be maintained in all publications or presentations resulting form this study. Aliases will be used with any quotation included in the study and markers that might reveal your identity, such as your department, will be excluded to minimize the risk.

The interview will be recorded on a digital recording device. To preserve the confidentiality of your responses, the recording will be saved under a numerical code on

258 the hard drive of my computer, which is password protected. The key with the codes will likewise be password protected. The interview will be used only for the present study.

LANGUAGE: The focus group interview will be conducted in English. However, you will have the opportunity to review the written transcription of the interview subsequently. At that time, you may suggest corrections to words or phrases that you believe did not accurately convey what you intended to say.

If you have any questions or would like additional information about this research, please contact me at [email protected]. The GW Institutional Review Board, which is administered through the Office of Human Research, has approved this project. You may also contact the OHR at [email protected]. This project has also been approved by your university administration.

A signed copy of this consent form will be given to you.

I understand the above information and have had all of my questions about participation on this research project answered. I voluntarily consent to participate in this research.

Signature of Participant ______Date ______

Printed Name of Participant ______

Signature of Researcher ______Date ______

259 Informed Consent Form for Stakeholder Interviewee Project Title: Taking Root in Foreign Soil: Adaptation Processes of Imported Universities

You are being asked to participate in a research project conducted by Terrence Graham from the Graduate School of Education and Human Development of The George Washington University (GW). You are being asked because of your knowledge about and/or interest in the development of (university name). The university has granted permission for this research to be conducted.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to explore how a foreign model of higher education, the western-style, private nonprofit institutional model, has adapted to different national contexts in the former Eastern bloc.

PARTICIPATION: You will be asked to respond to several questions about your perspective on (university name) and its development as an institution. It is expected that your participation will take no more than one hour of your time.

TYPES OF QUESTIONS: The interview will take the form of a discussion about the university and how it has adapted to its environment. There will not be any questions of a political or personal nature.

RISKS & BENEFITS: The potential risks associated with this study are minimal and will be managed by preserving the confidentiality of your responses.

Although we do not expect this project to benefit you directly, we believe it might provide valuable insights for higher education scholars as well as university leaders and policymakers.

VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION: Please understand that participation is completely voluntary. Your decision whether or not to participate will in no way affect your current or future relationship with (university name), its faculty, students, or staff, with American Councils for International Education, or with The George Washington University. You have the right to withdraw from the research at any time without penalty. You also have the right to refuse to answer any question(s) for any reason, without penalty.

CONFIDENTIALITY: Your individual privacy will be maintained in all publications or presentations resulting form this study. Aliases will be used with any quotation included in the study and markers that might reveal your identity, such as your department, will be excluded to minimize the risk.

The interview will be recorded on a digital recording device. To preserve the confidentiality of your responses, the recording will be saved under a numerical code on the hard drive of my computer, which is password protected. The key with the codes will likewise be password protected. The interview will be used only for the present study.

260 LANGUAGE: The interview will be conducted in English. However, you will have the opportunity to review the written transcription of the interview subsequently. At that time, you may suggest corrections to words or phrases that you believe did not accurately convey what you intended to say.

If you have any questions or would like additional information about this research, please contact me at [email protected]. The GW Institutional Review Board, which is administered through the Office of Human Research, has approved this project. You may also contact the OHR at [email protected]. This project has also been approved by the university administration.

A signed copy of this consent form will be given to you.

I understand the above information and have had all of my questions about participation on this research project answered. I voluntarily consent to participate in this research.

Signature of Participant ______Date ______

Printed Name of Participant ______

Signature of Researcher ______Date ______

261 Appendix C

Faculty Interview Protocol

Date ______Time ______

Location ______

Introduction

My name is Terrence Graham and I am a researcher from The George Washington

University in Washington, DC. I have worked in the field of international education for over ten years with a focus on Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Through my work I have become fascinated by the many different forms of higher education that have emerged in this region in the past twenty years. Your institution is one that I found to be especially interesting as an example of higher education in your country. In this discussion, I would like to learn more about how your institution has managed to adapt.

Section A: Local Influences – Mission and Values

First, I want to ask you some questions related to the purpose or mission of the

university. Your university appeared relatively recently in [country name].

A1 What in your view was the rationale behind establishing the American

University?

A2 How would you articulate in your own words what you think the mission of

American University is?

A3 To what extent do you think the mission of the American University has changed

or evolved since it was founded?

A4 To what extent does the university mission influence your approach to teaching, if

at all?

262 Your university is described as a liberal arts institution, which implies certain values

or norms for the institution. I would like to ask you some questions about what this

means to you.

A5 How would you articulate in your own words the values that are emphasized at

[American University]?

A6 In what ways are these values expressed at the university?

Section B: National Context and Influence

Now I want you to think about [American University] and how it fits into the higher-

education system of [country name].

B1 To what extent do you think [American University]’s development has been

affected by the fact that it is in [country name] and not someplace else?

B2 How do you think your colleagues at other universities in your country would

describe the [American University]?

B3 What do you think motivates [host country] students to come to the [American

University]?

B4 What, if anything, sets students at your university apart from their peers at the

other universities in [country name]?

B5 The name of your institution implies that it is both “[American]” and

“[Bulgarian].” In your view, what is “American” about the university, what is

“Bulgarian,” and does it matter?

Section C: Challenges and Adaptive Strategies

263 Your university has managed to overcome some difficult challenges since it began

operating here. Often challenges to a university are discussed in discusses as external

and internal. External challenges might include such things as global competition,

policy changes, economic factors, technological changes, or demographics. Internal

challenges might include leadership and structural changes at the university, budget

constraints, and staff turnover, for example.

C1 Thinking in these terms, what do you believe have been the greatest external

challenges your university has faced?

C2 How has the university responded to these challenges?

C3 What do you believe have been the most significant internal challenges for your

institution?

C4 How has the university responded to these challenges?

C5 To what extent is your university is well prepared to overcome challenges it might

face in the next five to ten years?

C6 Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future of your university?

C6.1 Why?

Thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to talk to me today.

264 Appendix D

Focus Group Interview Protocol

Date ______Time ______

Location ______

Introduction

My name is Terrence Graham and I am a researcher from The George Washington

University in Washington, DC. I have worked in the field of international education for over ten years with a focus on Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Through my work I have become fascinated by the many different forms of higher education that have emerged in this region in the past twenty years. Your institution is one that I found to be especially interesting as an example of a new model of higher education in your country. In this discussion with you, I would like to learn more about how your institution has managed to adapt.

Section A: Local Influences – Mission and Values

First, I want to ask you some questions related to the purpose or mission of the university.

A1 How would you articulate in your own words what you think the mission of

American University is?

A2 To what extent does the university mission influence what and how you are taught?

A3 Do you believe that the university seeks to instill any specific political or other values in its students?

A3.1 [If yes without elaboration] How would you describe those values?

A4 In what ways are those values expressed at the university?

265

Section B: National Context and Influence

Your university appeared relatively recently in [country name]. I want to ask you some questions about how it now fits in with the higher-education system.

B1 In what ways do you think American University’s development has been affected by the fact that it is in [country name] and not someplace else?

B2 What motivated you to come to the American University?

B3 What, if anything, sets you at the American University apart from your peers at the other universities in [country name]?

B4 How do you think students at other universities in your country would describe the

American University?

Section C: Adaptive Strategies

C1 What do you believe are the greatest challenges your university is facing?

C2 How is the university responding to these challenges?

C3 How has your university adapted to the changes your country has undergone?

C4 Are you optimistic about the future of your university?

266 Appendix E

Stakeholder Interview Protocol

Date ______Time ______

Location ______

Introduction

My name is Terrence Graham and I am a researcher from The George Washington

University in Washington, DC. I have worked in the field of international education for over ten years with a focus on Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Through my work I have become fascinated by the many different forms of higher education that have emerged in this region in the past twenty years. Your institution is one that I found to be especially interesting as a model of higher education in this country. In this discussion with you, I would like to learn more about how your institution has managed to adapt.

Note: Questions will be modified depending on whether or not the stakeholder is currently affiliated with the institution or historically affiliated. The protocol will be tailored to each individual to solicit the most relevant responses.

Describe your relationship to the university.

In your recollection, what were/are the main external threats to the university’s survival?

What are the main internal threats?

In your view, has the university successfully adapted to its environment?

(If yes) What factors have contributed to its successful adaptation?

(If no) What has hindered the university from adapting successfully?

267 How would you describe the university’s adaptation strategy?

How well prepared is the institution for the next big threat to its existence?

Who are the main actors in establishing strategy at the university?

How does the university interact with the Ministry of Education?

To what extent is the university a part of the national system of higher education, as opposed to being apart from the system?

How important is the university mission in your work?

How would you describe the management style of the university?

[If no response: For example, is it participatory, hierarchical, collegial . . . ]?

268 Appendix F

Sample Permission Request Sent to University President/Rector

Dear Andrew – In addition to my work at American Councils, which has brought me into contact with AUCA, I am a doctoral student at the George Washington University’s Graduate School of Education. I am preparing for the defense of my dissertation proposal by the end of this semester and plan to begin my data collection in spring 2012. I am writing to inform you of my proposed topic and request your preliminary permission to include AUCA in my study. My proposed study examines the adaptation of exported models of higher education in former Eastern bloc countries. My methodology is a multiple case study approach that includes three western-style universities that emerged in the past 20 years in the former Eastern bloc. (Other institutions might include AUBG, the European Humanities University, and the American University of Kosovo). This is a qualitative study. Data will be drawn from document analysis, semi-structured interviews with faculty members, focus groups with students, interviews with key stakeholders, and nonparticipant observation during site visits. The overarching research question that this study addresses is: How does an exported model of U.S. higher education adapt within a non U.S. national context? Specific sub-questions explored in this study include: • To what extent do the mission and values of these institutions influence the institutional environment? • To what extent is the development of these institutions affected by global, national, and local influences? • How do institutions’ adaptation strategies evolve in response to various external and internal challenges?

I have talked informally about my study with several AUCA faculty (from the business and economics programs) and they have expressed support for my project. I believe that my findings would be of interest to you and the leadership at AUCA, as the process of adaptation is continual. Prior to my proposal defense, which will take place by the end of this semester, I would like to receive written (email will suffice) permission from you to pursue this study at AUCA. Of course, after my proposal, I will need to go through the IRB process at GW and the equivalent process at AUCA to ensure that I am in compliance with institutional research standards and receive official approval.

If you have any questions about my study, please let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to hearing from you.

269 Appendix G

Sample Emails Requests for Interviews/Focus Groups

1. Email to Faculty Member

Dear (University Name) Faculty Member:

I am a doctoral candidate in the Graduate School of Education and Human Development at the George Washington University. My dissertation study, Taking Root in Foreign

Soil: Adaptation Processes of Imported Universities, explores the development of three institutions that were established in the former Eastern bloc since the fall of the Berlin

Wall: .the American University of Bulgaria, the American University of Central Asia, and

South East European University.

I will be conducting focused interviews with a cross-section of faculty members at your institution and would be grateful if you would agree to be interviewed for this project.

The interview should last approximately one hour and will be conducted in English. I will be on campus conducting interviews (DATES).

If this is of interest to you, please respond to this email and I will follow up with you to arrange a convenient time for the interview.

Thank you for your attention,

Terrence Graham

2. Email to Stakeholder To Request Interview

Dear (Name),

I am a doctoral candidate in the Graduate School of Education and Human Development at the George Washington University. My dissertation study, Taking Root in Foreign

Soil: Adaptation Processes of Imported Universities, explores the development of three

270 institutions that were established in the former Eastern bloc since the fall of the Berlin

Wall: .the American University of Bulgaria, the American University of Central Asia, and

South East European University. As part of my data collection, I will be conducting interviews with individuals who are knowledgeable of these institutions or have an interest/stake in their sustainability. I call these “stakeholder interviews”. My hope is that these interviews will provide background and contextual information that will be valuable for my study. In addition to these stakeholder interviews, I am interviewing faculty members and conducting focus groups with current students, as well as conducting document analysis.

Based on your (affiliation with/knowledge of) (University), I would like to request an interview with you at a time that is convenient to you. I anticipate that the interview will last approximately one hour. If we are unable to meet in person, then perhaps we could arrange a Skype or telephone interview.

If this is of interest and you are willing to assist, please let me know and I will follow up to arrange a time to talk.

Thank you for your attention,

3. Email to Student Focus Group Participant

Dear Student:

I am a researcher from the George Washington University writing about (University) as part of a study on global higher education models. During my visit to the university, I will be talking with faculty and administrators. I believe, however, that it is vital for me to understand the student perspective on the environment at (University). For this reason, I will be leading focus groups with a cross-section of students on (DATE & 2nd

271 DATE) and would like to invite you to take part in this discussion. I anticipate that the focus group will take about 90 minutes and will be conducted in English.

If this is of interest to you, please respond to this message no later than (date & time).

Please indicate in your response your name, major, and year of study.

Thanks in advance for considering this request!

272 References

Abramson, L. (2010, July 6). Michigan State to close Dubai campus. National Public

Radio. Retrieved from

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128342097

Altbach, P. G. (1999). Comparative perspectives. In P. Altbach (Ed.) Private

Prometheus: Private higher education and development in the 21st century (pp. 1-

14). Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

Altbach, P.G. (2004). Globalization and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal

world. Tertiary Education and Management, 1, 1-20.

Altbach, P. G. (2010) Why branch campuses may be unsustainable. International Higher

Education, 58(4), 2-3.

Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2009) Trends in global higher education:

Tracking an academic revolution. Retrieved from

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/.

America for Bulgaria Foundation (2015). Grants. Retrieved from

http://www.americaforbulgaria.org

American University in Bulgaria (2006). Self-Study report. Retrieved from

http://www.aubg.edu

American University in Bulgaria (2009). Fulfilling the promise: A strategic plan for the

American University in Bulgaria: 2010-2015. Retrieved from

http://www.aubg.edu

American University in Bulgaria. (2011). Fifth-Year interim report. Retrieved from

http://www.aubg.edu

273 Amthor, R. & Metzger, S. (2011). Neoliberalism, Globalization, and American

Universities in Eastern Europe: Tensions and Possibilities in ‘Exported’ Higher

Education. Globalizations 8(1), 65-80.

Anderson, K. H., & Heyneman, S. P. (2005). Education and social policy in Central Asia:

The next stage of the transition. Social Policy & Administration, 39(4), 361-380.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9515.2005.00445.x

Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization.

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

ASHA (2010). Office of American Schools and Hospitals Abroad website. Retrieved

from http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross-cutting_programs/asha/ .

Asian Development Bank (2015) Assessment of higher education Kyrgyz Republic.

Retrieved from www.adb.org.

AUCA-Your Ticket to Life. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.auca.edu

Bacevic, J. (2014) From class to identity: The politics of education reforms in former

Yugoslavia. Central European University Press: Budapest.

Benlian, A. (2013, May 22). Эндрю Вахтель: За отказом выдавать лицензию АУЦА

стоит глупость чиновников. Вечерный Бишкек. Retrieved from

http://www.vb.kg/228922.

Birkelund, J. P. (2001, September/October). Doing Good While Doing Well: The

Unheralded Success of American Enterprise Funds. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved

from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2001-09-01/doing-good-while-

doing-well-unheralded-success-american-enterprise-funds

274 Bertelsen, R. (2009, November). Private higher education in the GCC: Best practices in

governance, quality assurance and funding, Executive Summary. Policy Brief,

Dubai Initiative, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard

Kennedy School. Retrieved from http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu

Bertelsen, R. (2009b). American- and French-affiliated universities in the Middle East as

‘Information and resource bridges’ to the West. Working Paper. Dubai Initiative,

Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School.

Retrieved from http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu

Boyadjieva, P. & Slantcheva, S. (2007). Public perceptions of private universities and

colleges in Bulgaria. In S. Slantcheva & D. Levy (Eds.), Private Higher

Education in PostCommunist Europe : In Search of Legitimacy. (pp. 223-238).

New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Brankovic, J. (2012, November 15). Ranking higher-education institutions in Macedonia:

An attempt to tackle diversity? Retrieved from The Knowledge Base for Higher

Education and Research in the Western Balkans website:

http://www.herdata.org/in-focus/ranking-higher-education-institutions-in-

macedonia-an-attempt-to-tackle-diversification/22

Bray, M. (2002). The costs and financing of education: Trends and policy implications.

Manila: Asian Development Bank.

Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science (2014) Bulgarian University Ranking

System. Retrieved from Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science website:

http://rsvu.mon.bg/rsvu3/?locale=en

275 Bu, Liping (2003). Making the world like us: Education, cultural expansion, and the

American century. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.

Carnoy, M. (2002). Globalization and educational reform. In N. Stromquist & K.

Monkman (Eds.), Globalization and education: Integration and contestation

across cultures (pp. 43-62).

Clayton, T. (2004). “Competing conceptions of globalization” revisited: Relocating the

tension between world-systems analysis and globalization analysis. Comparative

Education Review, 48(3), 274-294.

Coffey, A. & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary

research strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crampton, R. J. (2005). A concise (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five

approaches. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Czaplinski, M. P. (2008). Conflict prevention and the issue of higher education in the

mother tongue: The case of the republic of Macedonia. Retrieved from

https://pure.uvt.nl

Deem, R. (2001). Globalisation, new managerialism, academic capitalism and

entrepreneurialism in universities: Is the local dimension still important?

Comparative Education, 37(1), 7-20. doi:10.1080/03050060020020408

Denscombe, M. (2003). The good research guide for small-scale social research project

(2nd ed.). New York and London: Press.

276 DePauw University (2000, January 9). DePauw is Model for American University in

Kyrgyzstan. Retrieved from http://www.depauw.edu

DeYoung, A. J. (2008). Conceptualizing paradoxes of post-socialist education in

Kyrgyzstan. Nationalities Papers, 36(4), 641-657.

DeYoung, A. J. (2011). Lost in transition: Redefining students and universities in the

contemporary Kyrgyz Republic. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

DeYoung, A. J. (2013). Redefining students and universities in the Kyrgyz Republic. In

P. Akçali and C. Engin-Demir (Eds.) Politics, Identity and Education in Central:

Post-Soviet Kyrgyzstan (pp. 158-189). New York: Routledge.

Dzhaparova, R. (2005). Modernization problems of higher education in Kyrgyzstan.

Russian Education and Society, 47(8), 80-89.

Easterly, W. (2002, July/August). The cartel of good intentions. Foreign Policy,131(4),

40-49.

Farrington, D. & Abazi, A. (2009). Organization and management of non-profit higher

education in a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual environment. U.S.-China Education

Review, 6(10), 9-16.

Foderaro, L. (2011, May 16). $60 Million Gift to Bolster Bard College’s Global Work.

The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com

Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in

education (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history the twenty-first century. New

York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

277 Geiger, R. (1985). The private alternative in higher education. European Journal of

Education, 20(4), 385-398.

George, A. L. & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social

sciences. Cambridge, MA and London, England: MIT Press.

Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for

world-class excellence. London: Palgrave MacMillan.

Heyneman, S. P. (2004). One step back, two steps forward: The first stage of the

transition for education in Central Asia. In S. Heyneman and A. DeYoung (Eds.)

The challenge of education in Central Asia, pp. 3-8. Greenwich, CT: Information

Age Publishing.

Heyneman, S. P. (2005). Foreign aid to education: Recent U.S. initiatives—background,

risks, and prospects. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(1), 107-119.

Heyneman, S. P. (2007). Three universities in Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan: The

struggle against corruption and for social cohesion. Prospects, 37, 305-318.

Heyneman, S. P. & Anderson, K. H. (2008). A quarter century of getting it right in

education: Worldwide successes and continuing challenges. Globalisation,

Societies, and Education, 6(4), 355-362.

International Association of Universities (2009). Why and how can higher education

contribute to all levels and types of education? Retrieved from

http://www.unesco.org/iau/efa/efa_information_kit.html.

International Crisis Group (2010). Kyrgyzstan: A Hollow Regime Collapses. Asia

Briefing 102. Retrieved from http://www.crisisgroup.org

278 IU Press Room (November, 2011) IU to celebrate strength, continued growth of

Macedonia partnership. Retrieved from http://newsinfo.iu.edu

King Baudouin Foundation (2015) Annual Magazine 2014: Working Together for a

Better Society. Retrieved from https://www.kbs-frb.be

King, R. (2009). Governing universities globally: Organizations, regulation and

rankings. Cheltenham, UK & Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.

King, R. (2010). Policy internationalization, national variety and governance: global

models and network power in higher education states. Higher Education, 60, 583-

594.

Klees, S. (2008a). A quarter century of neoliberal thinking in education: misleading

analyses and failed policies. Globalisation, Societies & Education, 6(4), 311-348.

doi:10.1080/14767720802506672.

Klees, S. (2008b). Neoliberalism and education revisited. Globalisation, Societies &

Education, 6(4), 409-414. doi:10.1080/14767720802506821.

Koktsidis, P. (2012). Strategic rebellion: Ethnic conflict in FYR Macedonia and the

Balkans. New York: P. Lang.

Laverty, E. B., and Roberta P. Laverty, R. P. (1993). The American University in

Bulgaria: Institution-building in a developing democracy. Maine Policy Review, 2(3), 69-

84. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/vol2/iss3/9

Levy, D. C. (1999). When private higher education does not bring organizational

diversity. In P. Altbach (Ed.) Private Prometheus: Private higher education and

development in the 21st century (pp. 15-43). Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood

Press.

279 Levy, D. C. (2006). The unanticipated explosion: Private higher education’s global surge.

Comparative Education Review, 50, 2, 217-240.

Levy, D. C. (2007) Legitimacy and privateness: Central and Eastern European private

higher education in global context. In S. Slantcheva & D. Levy (Eds.), Private

Higher Education in PostCommunist Europe : In Search of Legitimacy (pp. 280-

297). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Marginson, S. (2011). Higher education in East Asia and Singapore: Rise of the

Confucian model. Higher Education, 61(5), 587-611. doi:10.1007/s10734-010-

9384-9

Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of

higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43(3), 281-309.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.)

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McGlinchey, E. (2011). Chaos, violence, dynasty: Politics and Islam in Central Asia.

Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

McGowan, T. (2004). The growth of private higher education in Brazil: Implications for

equity and quality. Journal of Education Policy, 19(4), 453-472.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.

San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Murakami, Y. and Blom, A. (2008). Accessibility and affordability of tertiary education

in Brazil, Columbia, Mexico and Peru within a global context. Washington, DC:

World Bank.

280 Musha, J. (2004). Exporting the Ruined University: The Story of an American University

Abroad. The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association, 37(1), pp.

40-46

Najibullah, F. (2011, June 25) Language a Sensitive Issue in Kyrgyzstan. Radio Free

Europe Radio Liberty. Retrieved from http://www.rferl.org

Nazarbayev: KazNTU and KBTU to be Merged. (2015, December 25). Kazinform:

International News Agency. Retrieved from

http://www.inform.kz/eng/article/2853969.

New AUBG President. (2003, May 15) The Sofia Echo. Retrieved from

http://sofiaecho.com/2003/05/15/637804_new-aubg-president

Newton-Smith, W. (2007) Lessons in Capacity Building from the Open Society Institute.

In F. Bourguignon, Y. Elkana & B. Pleskovic (Eds.) Capacity Building in

Economics Education and Research (pp. 29-40). Washington: The World Bank.

Novinite.com (2010, November 19). American University in Bulgaria tops national

ranking. Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency). Retrieved from

http://www.novinite.com

Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. New York: Public

Affairs.

Open Society Foundations (2005, April 13) OSI Funds Establishment of Endowment for

American University of Central Asia. Retrieved from

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/press-releases/osi-funds-establishment-

endowment-american-university-central-asia

281 OPIC (2011, April 21) OPIC loan enables American University in Bulgaria to expand.

Retrieved from www.opic.gov.

Peck, L. (2014) Building a new university in Macedonia. IU International.

Retrieved from http://worldwide.iu.edu

Phillips Jr., R. (2004) The American University in Bulgaria and U.S. Agency for

International Development Relationship, International Journal of Public

Administration, 27(11-12), 883-891, DOI: 10.1081/ PAD-200037355

Phillips, D. & Ochs, K. (2003). Processes of policy borrowing in education: Some

explanatory and analytical devices. Comparative Education, 39(4), 451 – 461.

Pickering, P. (2007). Peacebuilding in the Balkans: The view from the ground floor.

Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Prince, G. S. (2008). Teach them to challenge authority: Educating healthy societies.

New York: Continuum.

QS (2016). QS University Rankings: Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Retrieved from

www.topuniversities.com.

Rahmetov, (A. (2009, April 23). Scary Statistics: The State of Schools in Kyrgyzstan.

Central-Asia-Caucasus Institute Analyst. Retrieved from www.cacianalyst.org

Republic of Bulgaria Ministry of Education and Science (2016). Retrieved from

www.minedu.government.bg.

Republic of Macedonia Ministry of Education (2016) Retrieved from www.mon.gov.mk.

Republic of Macedonia State Statistical Office (2015). Retrieved from

http://www.stat.gov.mk/Default_en.aspx

282 Riddell, R. C. (2009, November). Is aid working? Is this the right question to be asking?

openDemocracy. Retrieved from http://www.opendemocracy.net.

Rizvi, F. & Engel, L. C. (2009). Neo-liberal globalization, educational policy, and the

struggle for social justice. In W. Ayers, T. Quinn & D. Stovall (Eds.), The

handbook of social justice in education (pp. 529-541). New York: Routledge.

Rust, V. D., Portnoi, L., & Bagley, S. S. (2010). Higher education, policy, and the global

competition phenomenon. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Sanyal, B. (2007). The crucial role of higher education in achieving education for all.

IAU Horizons, 13(1). Retrieved from

http://www.unesco.org/iau/newletters/iaunew13-1-en.pdf

Sassen, S. (2007). A sociology of globalization. New York, London: W.W. Norton &

Company.

Scott, P. (2007). Reflections on private higher education tendencies in Central and

Eastern Europe. In S. Slantcheva & D. Levy (Eds.), Private higher Education in

PostCommunist Europe : In search of legitimacy. (pp. 299-315). New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Shavit, Y., Arum, R. & Gamoran, A. (Eds.). (2007). Stratification in higher education: A

comparative study. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in

education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press

283 Silova, I. & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2008). Unwrapping the post-socialist education reform

package. In I. Silova & G. Steiner-Khamsi (Eds.), How NGOs react:

Globalization and education reform in the Caucasus, Central Asia, and

Mongolia. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.

Skochilo, E., Toralieva, G., Freedman, E., & Shafer, R. (2013). Transplanting a western-

style journalism education to the Central Asian republics of the former Soviet

Union: Experiences and challenges at the American University of Central Asia in

Kyrgyzstan. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 68(4), 409-420.

Slantcheva, S. (2007). Legitimating the difference: Private higher-education institutions

in Central and Eastern Europe. In S. Slantcheva & D. Levy (Eds.), Private Higher

Education in PostCommunist Europe : In Search of Legitimacy. (pp. 56-73). New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Soros, G. and Schmitz, G. P. (2016, February 11). ‘The EU is on the verge of collapse’:

An interview. New York Review of Books. Retrieved from www.nybooks.com.

South East European University (2012) Self-Evaluation report 2011-2012. Retrieved

from http://www.seeu.edu.mk

South East European University (2012b) Strategic plan 2013-2016. Retrieved from

http://www.seeu.edu.mk

Sporn, B. (1999). Adaptive university structures: An analysis of adaptation to

socioeconomic environments of US and European Universities. London and

Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

284 Spreen, C.A. (2004). Appropriating borrowed policies: Outcomes-based education in

South Africa. In Steiner-Khamsi (Ed.). The global politics of educational

borrowing and lending. (pp. 101-113). New York: Teachers College Press.

Spring, J. (2008). Research on globalization and education. Review of Educational

Research, 78(2), 330-363.

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2004a). Globalization in education: Real or imagined? In G. Steiner-

Khamsi (Ed.). The global politics of educational borrowing and lending (pp. 1-6).

New York: Teachers College Press.

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2004b). Blazing a trail for policy theory and practice. In G. Steiner-

Khamsi (Ed.). The global politics of educational borrowing and lending (pp. 201-

220). New York: Teachers College Press.

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2006). The development turn in comparative education. European

Education, 38(3), 19-47.

Steiner-Khamsi, G. & Stolpe, I. (2006). Educational import: Local encounters with

global forces in Mongolia. New York. Palgrave Macmillan.

Steiner-Khamsi, G., Silova, I. & Johnson, E. M. (2006). Neoliberalism liberally applied:

Educational policy borrowing in Central Asia. In J. Ozga, T. Seddon, & T.

Popkewitz (Eds.). World yearbook of education 2006: Education research and

policy: steering the knowledge-based economy. New York: Routledge.

Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York: Norton.

Stromquist, N. (2005, Spring). Comparative and international education: A journey

toward equality and equity. Harvard Educational Review, 75(1), 1-22. Retrieved

from http://www.edreview.org.

285 Stromquist, N. & Monkman, K. (2000). Defining Globalization. In N. Stromquist & K.

Monkman (Eds.), Globalization and education: Integration and contestation

across cultures (pp. 3-25).

Teixeira, P. & Amaral, A. (2001). Private higher education and diversity: An exploratory

survey. Higher Education Quarterly, 55(4), 359-395.

Tolo, K. (2007). Report on American University—Central Asia (AUCA) preparedness

for accreditation by New England Association of Schools and Colleges.

Retrieved from http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnadl063.pdf

Treaty on European Union (1992). Retrieved from http://europa.eu/eu-law/decision-

making/treaties/pdf/treaty_on_european_union/treaty_on_european_union_en.pdf

Vavrus, F. (2006). The referential web: Externalization beyond education in Tanzania. In

Steiner-Khamsi (Ed.). The global politics of educational borrowing and lending

(pp. 141-153). New York: Teachers College Press.

USAID Education and Universities (2010). USAID Website. Retrieved from

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/education_and_universities/index.html

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Digest of

Education Statistics, 2012 (NCES 2014-015), Table 171.

U.S. General Accounting Office (2015). Report to the Chairman, Committee on the

Judiciary, U.S. Senate: Summer Work Travel Program. Retrieved from

http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/668453.pdf

Wildavsky, B. (2010). The great brain race: How global universities are reshaping the

world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

286 World Bank (2002). Constructing knowledge societies: New challenges for tertiary

education. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

World Bank. (2015). World Development Indicators. Retrieved from

http://www.worldbank.org

The World Factbook 2013-14. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 2013.

Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-

factbook/index.html

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks:

Sage.

Young, S. (1997, December 20) American University: Problems Plague UMaine’s

Bulgarian Experiment. Bangor Daily News. Retrieved from

http://archive.bangordailynews.com

$6 Million in Scholarships Available for Top Bulgarian Students (2013, January). AUBG

alumni news. Retrieved from https://alumni.aubg.edu/news

287